Search

Background: A recent large multicentre trial found no difference in clinical outcomes but identified a possibility of increased mortality rates in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) receiving higher protein. These alarming findings highlighted the urgent need to conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to inform clinical practice. Methods: From personal files, citation searching, and three databases searched up to 29-5-2023, we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult critically ill patients that compared higher vs lower protein delivery with similar energy delivery between groups and reported clinical and/or patient-centred outcomes. We conducted random-effect meta-analyses and subsequently trial sequential analyses (TSA) to control for type-1 and type-2 errors. The main subgroup analysis investigated studies with and without combined early physical rehabilitation intervention. A subgroup analysis of AKI vs no/not known AKI was also conducted. Results: Twenty-three RCTs (n = 3303) with protein delivery of 1.49 ± 0.48 vs 0.92 ± 0.30 g/kg/d were included. Higher protein delivery was not associated with overall mortality (risk ratio [RR]: 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88–1.11; I 2 = 0%; 21 studies; low certainty) and other clinical outcomes. In 2 small studies, higher protein combined with early physical rehabilitation showed a trend towards improved self-reported quality-of-life physical function measurements at day-90 (standardized mean difference 0.40, 95% CI − 0.04 to 0.84; I 2 = 30%). In the AKI subgroup, higher protein delivery significantly increased mortality (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.11–1.82; I 2 = 0%; 3 studies; confirmed by TSA with high certainty, and the number needed to harm is 7). Higher protein delivery also significantly increased serum urea (mean difference 2.31 mmol/L, 95% CI 1.64–2.97; I 2 = 0%; 7 studies). Conclusion: Higher, compared with lower protein delivery, does not appear to affect clinical outcomes in genera

Background: CONCISE is an internationally agreed minimum set of outcomes for use in nutritional and metabolic clinical research in critically ill adults. Clinicians and researchers need to be aware of the clinimetric properties of these instruments and understand any limitations to ensure valid and reliable research. This systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken to evaluate the clinimetric properties of the measurement instruments identified in CONCISE. Methods: Four electronic databases were searched from inception to December 2022 (MEDLINE via Ovid, EMBASE via Ovid, CINAHL via Healthcare Databases Advanced Search, CENTRAL via Cochrane). Studies were included if they examined at least one clinimetric property of a CONCISE measurement instrument or recognised variation in adults ≥ 18 years with critical illness or recovering from critical illness in any language. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures was used. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses were used in line with COSMIN guidance. The COSMIN checklist was used to evaluate the risk of bias and the quality of clinimetric properties. Overall certainty of the evidence was rated using a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Narrative synthesis was performed and where possible, meta-analysis was conducted. Results: A total of 4316 studies were screened. Forty-seven were included in the review, reporting data for 12308 participants. The Short Form-36 Questionnaire (Physical Component Score and Physical Functioning), sit-to-stand test, 6-m walk test and Barthel Index had the strongest clinimetric properties and certainty of evidence. The Short Physical Performance Battery, Katz Index and handgrip strength had less favourable results. There was limited data for Lawson Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Background: Clinical research on nutritional and metabolic interventions in critically ill patients is heterogenous regarding time points, outcomes and measurement instruments used, impeding intervention development and data syntheses, and ultimately worsening clinical outcomes. We aimed to identify and develop a set of core outcome domains and associated measurement instruments to include in all research in critically ill patients. Methods: An updated systematic review informed a two-stage modified Delphi consensus process (domains followed by instruments). Measurement instruments for domains considered ‘essential’ were taken through the second stage of the Delphi and a subsequent consensus meeting. Results: In total, 213 participants (41 patients/caregivers, 50 clinical researchers and 122 healthcare professionals) from 24 countries contributed. Consensus was reached on time points (30 and 90 days post-randomisation). Three domains were considered ‘essential’ at 30 days (survival, physical function and Infection) and five at 90 days (survival, physical function, activities of daily living, nutritional status and muscle/nerve function). Core ‘essential’ measurement instruments reached consensus for survival and activities of daily living, and ‘recommended’ measurement instruments for physical function, nutritional status and muscle/nerve function. No consensus was reached for a measurement instrument for Infection. Four further domains met criteria for ‘recommended,’ but not ‘essential,’ to measure at 30 days post-randomisation (organ dysfunction, muscle/nerve function, nutritional status and wound healing) and three at 90 days (frailty, body composition and organ dysfunction). Conclusion: The CONCISE core outcome set is an internationally agreed minimum set of outcomes for use at 30 and 90 days post-randomisation, in nutritional and metabolic clinical research in critically ill adults., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published