Evidence Hub

The effectiveness of high versus lower enteral protein intake, considering energy intake, on clinical outcomes in critically ill children: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Corinne Jotterand Chaparro, V. B. Bertoni Maluf, Céline Pabion, Florian Stern, C. Moullet, B. Kiszio, Marie-Thérèse Pugliese, A. Ramelet et al.

Clinical Nutrition, 2025

6 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The optimal protein intake for critically ill children remains uncertain. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of high versus lower enteral protein intake, accounting for energy intake, on clinical and nutritional outcomes in children hospitalized in pediatric intensive care units (PICU).

METHODS

Following the JBI methodology, a comprehensive search was conducted across Medline, CINAHL Ultimate, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to March 18, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving critically ill children admitted to PICU for ≥48 h and receiving enteral nutrition were eligible. Studies comparing protein intake of 2 g/kg/day to internationally recommended intakes were included. Two independent reviewers screened, selected, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias using the JBI critical appraisal checklist for RCTs; a third reviewer resolved any disagreements. Meta-analyses were performed for nitrogen balance, PICU length of stay, prealbumin and blood urea levels using a random-effects model to account for between-study heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were included, assessing high (n = 6) and low (n = 2) enteral protein intake versus the recommended intake, mostly in infants aged 2-4 months, with bronchiolitis or after cardiac surgery. Four studies presented an unclear risk of bias and four a high risk. High protein intake (∼3 g/kg/day) was associated with significantly higher nitrogen balance values…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 6 participants or records.

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