Table 3_Intermittent versus continuous enteral nutrition in critically ill patients: an up

Twenty-two randomized controlled trials comprising 1,662 critically ill patients compare intermittent and continuous enteral nutrition. This meta-analysis, authored by Shu Zhang and updated in April 2026, reports pooled risk ratios for outcomes like diarrhea, constipation, and ICU length of stay. The analysis includes subgroup results for mechanically ventilated patients.

Use Cases

• Compare the incidence of gastrointestinal complications between feeding strategies based on the reported risk ratios.
• Assess the impact on ICU length of stay based on the reported mean difference of 0.91 days.
• Evaluate the differential effects in patient subgroups based on the described analysis of mechanically ventilated versus non-ventilated patients.
• Inform clinical guidelines for enteral nutrition based on the synthesized evidence from 22 randomized controlled trials.

Strengths

• Includes data from 22 randomized controlled trials, a systematic evidence synthesis method.
• Reports specific quantitative results, such as a risk ratio of 1.56 for diarrhea and a mean difference of 0.91 days for ICU stay.
• Provides subgroup analysis results for mechanically ventilated patients.

Limitations

• The primary data file is a 3.0 MB DOCX document; the underlying structured data (e.g., individual trial results) is not directly accessible.
• Row count and column-level documentation for any underlying data are unknown.
• Freshness should be verified; the last update was 2026-04-21.

Provenance

Source

Shu Zhang via figshare

Collection Method

Systematic review and meta-analysis of literature from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library through December 10, 2025.

Time Range

Literature search covered studies from database inception through December 10, 2025.

Freshness

Last updated 2026-04-21 04:22:59