4.7 Article

Methodological Aspects of Indirect Calorimetry in Patients with Sepsis-Possibilities and Limitations

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 14, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu14050930

关键词

sepsis; septic shock; energy expenditure; energy demand; calorimetry; metabolism; clinical nutrition; critical care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review analysed the challenges and limitations of using indirect calorimetry in patients with sepsis, finding differences in methodology and presentation of results in studies. Multi-center and large sample patient evaluations, along with meta-analysis, could provide a more comprehensive understanding of metabolism in sepsis.
The aim of the review was to analyse the challenges of using indirect calorimetry in patients with sepsis, including the limitations of this method. A systematic review of the literature was carried out. The analysis concerned the methodology and presentation of research results. In most studies assessing energy expenditure, energy expenditure was expressed in kcal per day (n = 9) and as the mean and standard deviation (n = 7). Most authors provided a detailed measurement protocol, including measurement duration (n = 10) and device calibration information (n = 7). Ten papers provided information on the day of hospitalisation when the measurements were obtained, nine on patient nutrition, and twelve on the criteria for inclusion and exclusion of participants from the study. Small study group sizes and study at a single centre were among the most cited limitations. Studies assessing energy expenditure in patients with sepsis by indirect calorimetry differ in the methodology and presentation of results, and their collective analysis is difficult. A meta-analysis of the results could enable multi-site and large patient evaluation. Standardisation of protocols and presentation of all collected data would enable their meta-analysis, which would help to achieve greater knowledge about metabolism in sepsis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据