Evidence Hub

Changes in global nutrition practices in critically ill children and the impact of emerging evidence: a secondary analysis of the Pediatric International Nutrition Studies (PINS), 2009-2018

A. Akhondi-Asl, Katelyn Ariagno, Larissa Fluckiger, Corinne Jotterand Chaparro, E. Martinez, Y. Moreno, C. Ong, Heather E Skillman et al.

Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2024

3,650 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The timeline of the three Pediatric International Nutrition Studies (PINS) coincided with the publication of 2 major guidelines for the timing of parenteral nutrition (PN) and recommended energy and protein delivery dose.

OBJECTIVE

The study's main objective was to describe changes in the nutrition delivery practice recorded in PINS 1 and 2 (conducted in 2009 and 2011, pre-exposure epoch) versus PINS 3 (conducted in 2018,post-exposure epoch), in relation to the published practice guidelines.

DESIGN

This study is a secondary analysis of data from a multi-center prospective cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

/setting. Data from 3650 participants, aged 1 month to 18 years, admitted to 100 unique hospitals that participated in three PINS was used for this study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The time in days from PICU admission to the initiation of PN and enteral nutrition (EN) delivery were the primary outcomes. Prescribed energy and protein goals were the secondary outcomes.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED

A frailty model with a random intercept per hospital with stratified baseline hazard function by region for the primary outcomes and a mixed-effects negative binomial regression with random intercept per hospital for the secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients receiving EN (88.3% vs. 80.6%, p-value<0.001) was higher, and those receiving PN (20.6% vs. 28.8%, p-value<0.001) was lower in the PINS3 cohort compared to PINS1-2. In the PINS3 cohort, the odds of initiating…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 3,650 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