Conectar
To evaluate and summarize the evidence for prevention and management of enteral feeding intolerance in critically ill patients and provide reference for clinical practice.
This study was an evidence summary followed by the evidence summary reporting standard of Fudan University Center for Evidence-based Nursing.
Current literatures were systematically searched for the best evidence for prevention and management of enteral feeding intolerance in critically ill patients. Literature types included clinical guidelines, best practice information sheets, expert consensuses, systematic reviews, evidence summaries and cohort studies.
UpToDate, BMJ Best Practice, Joanna Briggs Institute, Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Sinomed, Web of Science, Yi Maitong Guidelines Network, DynaMed, MEDLINE, CNKI, WanFang database, Chinese Medical Journal Full-text Database, European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism website, the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition website were searched from January 2012 to April 2023.
We finally identified 18 articles that had high-quality results. We summarized the 24 pieces of best evidence from these articles, covering five aspects: screening and assessment of the risk of enteral nutritional tolerance; formulation of enteral nutrition preparations; enteral nutritional feeding implementation; feeding intolerance symptom prevention and management; and multidisciplinary management. Of these pieces of evidence, 19 were ‘strong’ and 5 were ‘weak’, 7 pieces of evidence were recommended in level one and 4 pieces of evidence were recommended in level two.
The following 24 pieces of evidence for prevention and management of enteral feeding intolerance in critically ill patients were finally recommended. However, as these evidences came from different countries, relevant factors such as the clinical environment should be evaluated before application. Future studies should focus on more specific symptoms of feeding intolerance and more targeted prevention design applications.
The clinical medical staffs are recommended to take evidence-based recommendations for the implementation of standardized enteral nutrition to improve patient outcomes and decrease gastrointestinal intolerance in critically ill patients.
The management of enteral nutrition feeding intolerance has always been a challenge and difficulty in critically ill patients. This study summarizes 24 pieces of the best evidence for prevention and management of enteral nutrition feeding intolerance in critically ill patients. Following and implementing these 24 pieces of evidence is beneficial to the prevention and management of feeding intolerance in clinical practice. The 24 pieces of evidence include five aspects, including screening and assessment of the risk of enteral nutritional tolerance, formulation of enteral nutrition preparations, enteral nutritional feeding implementation, feeding intolerance symptom prevention and management and multidisciplinary management. These five aspects constitute a good implementation process. Screening and assessment of enteral nutritional tolerance throughout intervention are important guarantees for developing a feasible nutrition program in critically ill patients. This study will be benefit to global medical workers in the nutritional management of critically ill patients.
This evidence summary followed the evidence summary reporting specifications of Fudan University Center for Evidence-based Nursing, which were based on the methodological process for the summary of the evidence produced by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). The reporting specifications include problem establishment, literature retrieval, literature screening, literature evaluation, the summary and grading of evidence and the formation of practical suggestions. This study was based on the evidence summary reporting specifications of the Fudan University Center for the Evidence-based Nursing, the register name is ‘Best evidence summary for prevention and management of enteral feeding intolerance in critically ill patients’, the registration number is ‘ES20231823’.
To summarize evidence from systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) regarding the impact of dyadic interventions delivered to both members of a cancer dyad, including a cancer patient and caregiver (e.g. family caregiver, intimate partner).
This overview of SRs was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews statement.
A comprehensive search of multiple databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wan Fang. The methodological and reporting quality of SRs and MAs was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2. The quality of the included SRs/MAs was evaluated using the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
Eighteen SRs/MAs undertook quantitative synthesis to assess the impact of dyadic interventions on cancer dyads. Both the credibility of the SRs/MAs and the evidence quality of the outcome measures were below satisfactory standards. Prior SRs/MAs revealed several limitations such as lack of pre-published protocols or research objectives, failure to report excluded studies and insufficient details on funding sources for individual studies.
Dyadic interventions may prove advantageous for the physical health and dyadic adjustment of cancer dyads. Nevertheless, the reported results of dyadic interventions on the psychological health of patient–caregiver dyads affected by cancer are inconsistent. Thus, rigorous and comprehensive studies are requisite to establish reliable evidence for conclusive determinations.
The findings of this overview can guide healthcare practitioners when considering the use of dyadic interventions for cancer dyads. Moreover, these findings have the potential to enhance the integration of these approaches into clinical practice.
Our paper presents an overview of systematic reviews, and therefore, such specific details may not be relevant to our study.
Current guidelines stress the importance of exercise, especially multicomponent exercise to older adults with chronic conditions.
To critically synthesise evidence that evaluates the effects of multicomponent exercise on quality of life, depression and anxiety after stroke.
Systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA 2020 statement.
A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception to 12 June 2023 was performed. Risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2). Meta-analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4 and narrative syntheses were adopted whenever meta-analysis was inappropriate. The overall certainty of the evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
Of 15,351 records identified, nine were eligible and data were available for seven randomised controlled trials, three of which were identified as having a high risk of bias, one as low risk, and five as having some concerns. Subgroup pooled analyses indicated that multicomponent exercise engaged in longer exercise sessions (>60 min) was effective in improving quality of life immediately post-intervention and through 3–6 months post-intervention. However, multicomponent exercise did not significantly affect depression and anxiety.
Multicomponent exercise with longer duration of exercise sessions has promising effects on both short- to medium-term quality of life among stroke survivors.
This does not apply to our work as it is a review paper.
Healthcare providers could consider encouraging the patients to participate in multicomponent exercise sessions for more than 60 min. It is important to note that stroke survivors should be supervised by trained personnel at the beginning of the training.
The protocol was registered on PROSPERO.
FreshRSS 