Calorie support showed no clear survival benefit in high-risk critically ill patients
A review found lower mortality associated with adequate energy intake in high-risk patients overall, but randomized trials did not show a statistically clear mortality benefit.
Based on the published abstract. The full paper may contain additional methods, results and limitations.
The 30-second takeaway
Nutritional risk scores identified critically ill patients with higher mortality. Adequate energy intake was associated with lower short-term mortality among high-risk patients in the overall analysis, but that apparent benefit was not established in randomized trials. The score's ability to identify risk does not demonstrate that it can guide calorie support that improves survival.
The abstract does not define adequate energy intake or describe trial comparator regimens. It also does not explain the design mix behind the overall association, limiting interpretation of why that result differed from the randomized evidence.
Association versus a treatment effect
The overall analysis linked adequate energy intake with lower mortality at 28 days in high-risk patients. An association alone cannot show that energy intake itself caused better survival; the randomized evidence did not confirm that benefit.
What the randomized trials found
Among high-risk patients in randomized trials, mortality differences at 28 and 90 days were statistically inconclusive. The confidence intervals included both lower and higher odds of death, so these results do not establish equivalence.
The original publication
Impact of nutritional support on mortality among critically ill patients with different nutritional risks: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Bao L, Wang Y, Li Y et al.
Front Nutr · 2025
- PubMed ID
- 41340663
- Record checked
AI-assisted research and writing. This explains one selected publication; it is not a complete review of everything known. Our approach.
One more question, understood.
Keep track of the research you’ve explored.