Rosa Aguilera‐Martinez, Emília Ramis-Ortega, Concha Carratalá-Munuera, José Manuel Fernández‐Medina, M. D. Saiz-Vinuesa, M. J. Barrado‐Narvión
{"title":"经鼻胃管肠内喂养。连续与间歇给药对重症监护成人患者更大耐受性的有效性:一项系统评价。","authors":"Rosa Aguilera‐Martinez, Emília Ramis-Ortega, Concha Carratalá-Munuera, José Manuel Fernández‐Medina, M. D. Saiz-Vinuesa, M. J. Barrado‐Narvión","doi":"10.11124/JBISRIR-2011-323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Review Questions/Objectives \nThe Review objective is to synthesise the best available evidence on the effectiveness of continuous versus intermittent enteral feeding in adult patients with nasogastric tube admitted to the ICU, in respect to their nutritional status, digestive tolerance and complications \n \nInclusion Criteria \n \nTypes of participants \nPatients of nineteen years of age or more, carrying a nasogastric tube, enteral feeding recipients and who were admitted to an intensive care unit, with either a medical or a surgical pathology, and that received enteral feeding during their stay in the Intensive Care Unit. \n \nTypes of interventions \nIntervention: Continuous enteral feeding. \nComparator: Intermittent enteral feeding. \n \nTypes of outcomes \nStudies must include at least one of the following primary outcomes: \nPrimary outcome: \n1.-Patient’s nutritional status. \n2.-Digestive tolerance. \n3.-Bronchoaspiration. \nThe following secondary outcomes, will also be considered: \n1. Start day and duration of enteral feeding. \n2. Length of hospital stay and ICU stay. \n3. Causes of interruption of enteral feeding because of complications.","PeriodicalId":91723,"journal":{"name":"JBI library of systematic reviews","volume":"9 16 Suppl 1","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.11124/JBISRIR-2011-323","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Enteral Feeding via Nasogastric Tube. Effectiveness of continuous versus intermittent administration for greater tolerance in adult patients in Intensive Care: A systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Rosa Aguilera‐Martinez, Emília Ramis-Ortega, Concha Carratalá-Munuera, José Manuel Fernández‐Medina, M. D. Saiz-Vinuesa, M. J. Barrado‐Narvión\",\"doi\":\"10.11124/JBISRIR-2011-323\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Review Questions/Objectives \\nThe Review objective is to synthesise the best available evidence on the effectiveness of continuous versus intermittent enteral feeding in adult patients with nasogastric tube admitted to the ICU, in respect to their nutritional status, digestive tolerance and complications \\n \\nInclusion Criteria \\n \\nTypes of participants \\nPatients of nineteen years of age or more, carrying a nasogastric tube, enteral feeding recipients and who were admitted to an intensive care unit, with either a medical or a surgical pathology, and that received enteral feeding during their stay in the Intensive Care Unit. \\n \\nTypes of interventions \\nIntervention: Continuous enteral feeding. \\nComparator: Intermittent enteral feeding. \\n \\nTypes of outcomes \\nStudies must include at least one of the following primary outcomes: \\nPrimary outcome: \\n1.-Patient’s nutritional status. \\n2.-Digestive tolerance. \\n3.-Bronchoaspiration. \\nThe following secondary outcomes, will also be considered: \\n1. Start day and duration of enteral feeding. \\n2. Length of hospital stay and ICU stay. \\n3. Causes of interruption of enteral feeding because of complications.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91723,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JBI library of systematic reviews\",\"volume\":\"9 16 Suppl 1\",\"pages\":\"1-17\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-03-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.11124/JBISRIR-2011-323\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JBI library of systematic reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-2011-323\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBI library of systematic reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-2011-323","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Enteral Feeding via Nasogastric Tube. Effectiveness of continuous versus intermittent administration for greater tolerance in adult patients in Intensive Care: A systematic review.
Review Questions/Objectives
The Review objective is to synthesise the best available evidence on the effectiveness of continuous versus intermittent enteral feeding in adult patients with nasogastric tube admitted to the ICU, in respect to their nutritional status, digestive tolerance and complications
Inclusion Criteria
Types of participants
Patients of nineteen years of age or more, carrying a nasogastric tube, enteral feeding recipients and who were admitted to an intensive care unit, with either a medical or a surgical pathology, and that received enteral feeding during their stay in the Intensive Care Unit.
Types of interventions
Intervention: Continuous enteral feeding.
Comparator: Intermittent enteral feeding.
Types of outcomes
Studies must include at least one of the following primary outcomes:
Primary outcome:
1.-Patient’s nutritional status.
2.-Digestive tolerance.
3.-Bronchoaspiration.
The following secondary outcomes, will also be considered:
1. Start day and duration of enteral feeding.
2. Length of hospital stay and ICU stay.
3. Causes of interruption of enteral feeding because of complications.