Evidence Hub

Higher Versus Lower Protein Delivery in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Meta-Analysis

S. Heuts, Zheng-Yii Lee, C. C. H. Lew, J. Bels, A. Gabrio, M. Kawczynski, D. Heyland, M. Summers et al.

Critical Care Medicine, 2024

4,164 participants · 19 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Recent multicenter trials suggest that higher protein delivery may result in worse outcomes in critically ill patients, but uncertainty remains. An updated Bayesian meta-analysis of recent evidence was conducted to estimate the probabilities of beneficial and harmful treatment effects. DATA SOURCES: An updated systematic search was performed in three databases until September 4, 2024. The study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines and the protocol was preregistered in PROSPERO (CRD42024546387). STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials that studied adult critically ill patients comparing protein doses delivered enterally and/or parenterally with similar energy delivery between groups were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction was performed by two authors independently, using a predefined worksheet. The primary outcome was mortality. Posterior probabilities of any benefit (relative risk [RR] 1.00) and other important beneficial and harmful effect size thresholds were estimated. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the risk of bias 2.0 tool. All analyses were performed using a Bayesian hierarchical random-effects models, under vague priors. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-two randomized trials (n = 4164 patients) were included. The mean protein delivery in the higher and lower protein groups was 1.5 ± 0.6 vs. 0.9 ± 0.4 g/kg/d. The median RR for mortality was 1.01 (95% credible interval, 0.84–1.16).…

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: 4,164 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