...
首页> 外文期刊>Food and Nutrition Sciences >Back to Basics: Estimating Protein Requirements for Adult Hospital Patients. A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials
【24h】

Back to Basics: Estimating Protein Requirements for Adult Hospital Patients. A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials

机译:回到基础:估计成年住院患者的蛋白质需求。随机对照试验的系统评价

获取原文
           

摘要

Aim: To review the supporting evidence for protein requirements in hospitalised adults, and compare the findings with commonly-used guidelines and resources. Methods: a systematic review was conducted based on a computerised bibliographic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from 1950 to October 2011, as well as a citation review of relevant articles and guidelines. Studies were included if they were randomised clinical trials in hospitalised or chronically ill adults, comparing two or more different levels of protein intake. Information about study quality, setting, and findings was extracted using standardised protocols. Due to the heterogeneity of study characteristics, no meta-analysis was undertaken. Results: 116 papers were obtained in the search and 33 of these met all inclusion criteria. Five studies could not be obtained. The remainder reported outcome measures such as nitrogen balance, anthropometric measurements (including body weight, BMI, and mid-arm circumference), blood electrolyte levels and serum urea, which provide support for recommended protein intakes in various clinical conditions. The results were summarized and compared with current recommendations. Conclusion: high-level evidence to support current recommendations is lacking. The studies reviewed generally agreed with current guidelines and resources.
机译:目的:回顾住院成年人蛋白质需求的支持证据,并将研究结果与常用指南和资源进行比较。方法:根据1950年至2011年10月对MEDLINE,EMBASE和CINAHL进行的计算机书目检索,进行了系统的综述,并对相关文章和指南进行了引文综述。如果他们是在住院或慢性病成年人中进行的随机临床试验,则比较了两种或两种以上不同蛋白质摄入量的研究。使用标准化方案提取有关研究质量,设置和发现的信息。由于研究特征的异质性,未进行荟萃分析。结果:共检索到116篇论文,其中33篇符合所有纳入标准。无法获得五项研究。其余的报告了结果指标,例如氮平衡,人体测量(包括体重,BMI和中臂围),血液电解质水平和血清尿素,为各种临床情况下推荐的蛋白质摄入提供支持。对结果进行了总结,并与当前的建议进行了比较。结论:缺乏支持当前建议的高级证据。审查的研究总体上同意当前的指南和资源。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号