2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2020.09.800
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Nutritional adequacy of children with critical illnesses: where are we now?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These findings may be inconsistent with those of some previously published articles. Accordingly, these disagreements may be due to different study populations as most of the studied patients were critically ill patients with abdominal/neurosurgical underlying diseases [16,[25][26][27]. Additionally, the presence of nutritionists in daily medical team visits in our study may be another effective factor affecting the nutrient delivery of the studied patients.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These findings may be inconsistent with those of some previously published articles. Accordingly, these disagreements may be due to different study populations as most of the studied patients were critically ill patients with abdominal/neurosurgical underlying diseases [16,[25][26][27]. Additionally, the presence of nutritionists in daily medical team visits in our study may be another effective factor affecting the nutrient delivery of the studied patients.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…The present study was the second retrospective study conducted on the nutritional adequacy of the critically ill children in our referral PICU. Accordingly, the nutrition support indices obviously improved following the regular daily presence of nutritionists in medical staff team visits [25]. Additionally, our study investigated the nutritional adequacy of gastrointestinal surgical critically ill neonates and showed a high prevalence of underfeeding in such patients [16].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%