重症监护营养:试验数据的贝叶斯再分析。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Natalia Alejandra Angeloni, Federico Angriman, Neill K J Adhikari
{"title":"重症监护营养:试验数据的贝叶斯再分析。","authors":"Natalia Alejandra Angeloni, Federico Angriman, Neill K J Adhikari","doi":"10.1097/MCO.0000000000001094","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Nutritional support and optimal glucose control are key components of care during critical illness, yet evidence surrounding their use remains conflicting, making translation into clinical practice challenging. This review explores Bayesian methods to enhance the interpretation of frequentist critical care trials, particularly for interventions with inconclusive outcomes.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Bayesian re-analysis frameworks may clarify conflicting evidence in critical care, thus enhancing interpretability and supporting clinical decision-making. This review focuses on the Bayesian re-analysis of three recent trials with indeterminate results for mortality - NUTRIREA-3, EFFORT Protein, and TGC-Fast - that examined the effects of enteral nutrition and glucose control strategies.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>We re-analyzed the mortality outcomes of these trials within a Bayesian framework, contrasting our findings with the original trial results to illustrate how Bayesian methods can enhance the clinical applicability of trial outcomes. Although Bayesian and frequentist analyses generally agree on the direction and magnitude of effect, Bayesian methods offer the advantage of providing posterior probabilities of benefit and harm, thus identifying promising and potentially harmful interventions. This review underscores the value of Bayesian analysis in re-evaluating clinical trial data and guiding clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":10962,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care","volume":" ","pages":"148-155"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Critical care nutrition: a Bayesian re-analysis of trial data.\",\"authors\":\"Natalia Alejandra Angeloni, Federico Angriman, Neill K J Adhikari\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MCO.0000000000001094\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Nutritional support and optimal glucose control are key components of care during critical illness, yet evidence surrounding their use remains conflicting, making translation into clinical practice challenging. This review explores Bayesian methods to enhance the interpretation of frequentist critical care trials, particularly for interventions with inconclusive outcomes.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Bayesian re-analysis frameworks may clarify conflicting evidence in critical care, thus enhancing interpretability and supporting clinical decision-making. This review focuses on the Bayesian re-analysis of three recent trials with indeterminate results for mortality - NUTRIREA-3, EFFORT Protein, and TGC-Fast - that examined the effects of enteral nutrition and glucose control strategies.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>We re-analyzed the mortality outcomes of these trials within a Bayesian framework, contrasting our findings with the original trial results to illustrate how Bayesian methods can enhance the clinical applicability of trial outcomes. Although Bayesian and frequentist analyses generally agree on the direction and magnitude of effect, Bayesian methods offer the advantage of providing posterior probabilities of benefit and harm, thus identifying promising and potentially harmful interventions. This review underscores the value of Bayesian analysis in re-evaluating clinical trial data and guiding clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10962,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"148-155\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCO.0000000000001094\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCO.0000000000001094","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

综述目的:营养支持和最佳血糖控制是危重疾病期间护理的关键组成部分,但围绕其使用的证据仍然相互矛盾,使其转化为临床实践具有挑战性。本综述探讨了贝叶斯方法,以加强对重症监护试验的解释,特别是对结果不确定的干预措施。最新发现:贝叶斯再分析框架可以澄清危重病护理中相互矛盾的证据,从而增强可解释性并支持临床决策。这篇综述的重点是对最近3项死亡率结果不确定的试验(NUTRIREA-3、EFFORT Protein和TGC-Fast)的贝叶斯再分析,这些试验检验了肠内营养和血糖控制策略的影响。总结:我们在贝叶斯框架内重新分析了这些试验的死亡率结果,并将我们的发现与原始试验结果进行了对比,以说明贝叶斯方法如何增强试验结果的临床适用性。虽然贝叶斯和频率分析在影响的方向和程度上大致一致,但贝叶斯方法的优势在于提供益处和危害的后验概率,从而识别有希望和潜在有害的干预措施。这篇综述强调了贝叶斯分析在重新评估临床试验数据和指导临床实践中的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Critical care nutrition: a Bayesian re-analysis of trial data.

Purpose of review: Nutritional support and optimal glucose control are key components of care during critical illness, yet evidence surrounding their use remains conflicting, making translation into clinical practice challenging. This review explores Bayesian methods to enhance the interpretation of frequentist critical care trials, particularly for interventions with inconclusive outcomes.

Recent findings: Bayesian re-analysis frameworks may clarify conflicting evidence in critical care, thus enhancing interpretability and supporting clinical decision-making. This review focuses on the Bayesian re-analysis of three recent trials with indeterminate results for mortality - NUTRIREA-3, EFFORT Protein, and TGC-Fast - that examined the effects of enteral nutrition and glucose control strategies.

Summary: We re-analyzed the mortality outcomes of these trials within a Bayesian framework, contrasting our findings with the original trial results to illustrate how Bayesian methods can enhance the clinical applicability of trial outcomes. Although Bayesian and frequentist analyses generally agree on the direction and magnitude of effect, Bayesian methods offer the advantage of providing posterior probabilities of benefit and harm, thus identifying promising and potentially harmful interventions. This review underscores the value of Bayesian analysis in re-evaluating clinical trial data and guiding clinical practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
6.50%
发文量
116
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: A high impact review journal which boasts an international readership, Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care offers a broad-based perspective on the most recent and exciting developments within the field of clinical nutrition and metabolic care. Published bimonthly, each issue features insightful editorials and high quality invited reviews covering two or three key disciplines which include protein, amino acid metabolism and therapy, lipid metabolism and therapy, nutrition and the intensive care unit and carbohydrates. Each discipline introduces world renowned guest editors to ensure the journal is at the forefront of knowledge development and delivers balanced, expert assessments of advances from the previous year.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信