Evidence Hub

What a negative trial does not tell us: Bayesian reanalysis of the enteral citrulline supplementation versus placebo on SOFA score on day 7 in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients randomized clinical trial

A. Maamar, Arnaud Gacouin, Jean Reignier, Pierre Asfar, M. Commereuc, M. Lesouhaitier, Murielle Grégoire, E. Le Pabic et al.

Clinical Nutrition ESPEN, 2026

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The enteral citrulline supplementation versus placebo on SOFA score on day 7 in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients (IMMUNOCITRE) randomized controlled trial, evaluating the immune effect of restoring arginine deficiency through enteral administration of citrulline in critically ill patients, found no statistically significant difference in Day-7 SOFA score between enteral L-citrulline and placebo in mechanically ventilated ICU patients (p = 0.9). The trial was likely underpowered due to lower-than-expected baseline SOFA scores. We conducted a post hoc Bayesian reanalysis to quantify the posterior probability of benefit and characterize the residual uncertainty beyond the binary frequentist result.

METHODS

We performed a Bayesian reanalysis of all patients from the IMMUNOCITRE trial that included 120 mechanically ventilated ICU patients without sepsis or septic shock from four French intensive care units (ICU). Patients received either enteral L-citrulline (5 g twice daily for 5 days) or isonitrogenous, isocaloric placebo. Three prior distributions were specified to reflect optimistic, neutral, and pessimistic pre-existing beliefs about treatment benefit. The primary outcome (Day-7 SOFA score) was modelled as an ordinal variable using a Bayesian cumulative proportional-odds model adjusted for baseline Day-1 SOFA score. To account for competing terminal events without introducing survivor bias, patients who died before Day 7 were assigned a penalized…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free