The Nutritional Status of Patients Hospitalized in the ICUs of Iranian Hospitals: A Systematic Review

Document Type : Systematic Review

Authors

1 Anesthesiologist, Department of Anesthesia, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

2 Assistant professor of Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesia, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

3 Student Research Committee, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad branch, Mashhad, Iran

4 Student Research Committee, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

5 Assistant professor, Lung Disease Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

Background: Malnutrition is so common among hospitalized patients, especially those in intensive care units (ICUs). Providing adequate nutritional support for these patients is of utmost significance.
Aim: The present study was conducted with aim to investigate the nutritional status of patients hospitalized in the ICUs of Iranian hospitals.
Method: This systematic review was performed according to recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook. A search was conducted on Medline, Web of Sciences, PubMed, Scopus, and SID databases to find the articles on nutritional support for ICU patients hospitalized in Iran until April 9, 2023, using the keywords of "intensive care unit" OR "ICU" AND "nutritional support" and "Iran".
Results: Finally, 19 original, cross-sectional, prospective cohort, and retrospective articles conducted on human samples were entered in this study. Except for one study, all articles reported that the dietary intake was significantly lower among ICU admitted patients. Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II), Nutritional Risk Screening-2002 (NRS), and Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) measurement tools were used to predict the rate of malnutrition among the patients. Recorded reports indicate low calorie and nutrient intake among patients during ICU stay.
Implications for Practice: The analyzed hospitals have unsuitable and inadequate nutritional care services. In addition, the patient's intake of calories, protein, and other daily nutrients was significantly lower than the recommended amount leading to a cascade of undesirable patient outcomes.

Keywords

Main Subjects


Introduction

Literature review indicates that the frequency of undernutrition among hospitalized patients ranges from 18.2%-40% (1). Undernutrition incidence among critically ill patients is anticipated to be considerably higher due to a sharp rise in basal metabolic rate (2,3) and the existence of several circumstances that lead to the administration of enteral diets (1). In the Intensive Care Units, patients receive continuous medical attention in an effort to reduce the risk of serious outcomes, such as malnutrition, infection, and ultimately death (4). Nutritional therapy is crucial in the medical treatment of critically ill patients since it provides the targeted supply of energy and nutrients, avoids or minimizes the development of undernutrition, and corrects nutritional changes in undernourished patients (5). In addition, nutritional therapy has lately been shown to serve a fundamental therapeutic function, directly influencing disease pathophysiology and, consequently, the clinical result (6), and play a vital role in reducing and managing patients' morbidities (7,8).

Recent evidence supports the hypothesis that nutrients and nutritional treatments affect the underlying illness process and patient outcomes (9); therefore, the focus has shifted from nutrition as support to nutrition as therapy. Without compulsory feeding, such as enteral nutrition (EN) through a tube put into the GI tract or parenteral nutrition (PN) straight into the bloodstream, ICU patients who are unable to nourish themselves orally quickly become malnourished (10). Unless a serious problem would delay the start of enteral feeding, it is preferable to use enteral nutrition rather than parenteral nutrition. Early enteral nutrition (starting 24-48 hours after admission) is the first line of recommended nutrition support since it lowers the risk of infection and mortality compared to late enteral nutrition (EN) and early parenteral nutrition (PN) (11-15). Malnutrition is linked to higher morbidity and mortality rates, nosocomial infections, lengthier hospital stays, a lower functional level upon ICU discharge, and higher hospital costs (16,17). The body's functional and metabolic abnormalities, which serve to explain the preceding events, are predicated on the idea that malnutrition affects virtually every organ and/or system in the human body. Malnourished patients exhibit poor immunological response, digestion, and absorption in theguts (18,19).

Malnutrition also exerts a negative impact on how quickly wounds heal (20). Researchers use several tools and criteria to evaluate and score healthy and adequate nutritional status. Numerous factors, including food/nutritional consumption, physical examination, disease severity, anthropometric data, and functional assessment are included in the methods used to assess nutritional risk (21). NUTRIC score, APACHE II score, and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score are some of these tools (22). The rate of hospital admissions in Iran are over two million each year, and 20%-30% of patients need intensive care (23). According to Iranian studies, the overall malnutrition rate has been reported as 20%-50% (24). Therefore, the present study was performed with aim to investigate nutritional support in ICU admitted patients in Iran by reviewing the studies conducted in this regard.

 

Methods

This systematic review study was conducted using the methodology described in the Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. This review presents its findings by using inclusion and exclusion criteria, searching a comprehensive database, removing irrelevant studies, evaluating the quality of included studies, and interpreting the data. Adult patients over 18 years admitted to ICUs in Iranian hospitals were the key inclusion criterion. All of the included studies were written in English or Persian. This study excluded all meta-analysis review articles, narratives and systematic reviews, editorial letters, conference/poster presentations, case studies, brief studies, and animal studies.

All research publications containing the keywords “intensive care unit”, “nutritional support”, “Iran”, “parenteral nutrition” and “enteral nutrition” were searched in five online databases (Web of Sciences, Medline, PubMed, Scopus, and SID) until April 9, 2023. Both the titles and the abstracts of were evaluated for relevance. The process of screening was carried out with the eligible criteria. Two researchers checked the inclusion and exclusion criteria, taking into account the required qualifications. The full-text editions of the publications were obtained for the final screening of the extracted papers. The papers that were duplicates, presented in languages other than English and Persian, or lacked adequate information were eliminated. The publications written in a gray literature format were also removed. Two researchers read and examined the abstracts and titles of the articles individually. In case of any ambiguity or question, they discussed together. The researchers gathered all relevant data after deciding their goal. The collected information was utilized to create a checklist. Figure 1 depicts a PRISMA flowchart of the selected articles and procedures.

 

Previous studies

 

Identification of new studies via databases and registers

 

Identification of new studies via other

Studies included in previous version of review (n=1859)

Reports of studies included in previous version of review (n=0)

Records identified from:

Databases (n = 123)

Registers (n = 2)

 

 

Records removed before screening:

Duplicate records removed (n=4)

Records marked as ineligible by automation tools (n =0)

Records removed for other reasons (n = 0 )

 

 

Records identified from:

Websites (n = 3)

Organizations (n =0)

Citation searching

(n =0) etc.

 

 

Identification

Records screened (n=119)

 

Reports sought for retrieval

(n =67)

 

Reports assessed for eligibility

(n = 25)

 

 

New studies included in review

(n = 2)

Reports of new included studies

(n = 17)

 

 

Total studies included in review

(n = 19)

 

 

Records excluded (n=52)

 

Reports not retrieved

(n = 42)

 

 

Reports excluded:

Editorial letter (n = 1)

Review (n = 3)

No full text (n = 4)

 

 

Reports sought for retrieval (n =3)

 

 

Reports assessed for eligibility (n = 3)

 

Screening

Included

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: The PRISMA flowchart of the procedure for selecting studies

 

Cochrane's risk of bias tool was used to assess the potential bias in the published studies by considering eight criteria: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants, blinding of researchers, blinding of the evaluation process, attrition bias, adequate outcome data, selective reporting, and the absence of other biases. The level of bias risk was indicated by the responses "Yes," "No," and "Unclear", which correspond to low, high, and unclear rates of bias, respectively (25).

 

Ethical Consideration

Since the article was a systematic review study, no ethical consideration is applied.

 

Results

The search in five websites revealed a total of 1,859 documents. The initial step was to eliminate duplicate articles (n=4). After analyzing the titles and abstracts of the publications, 52 articles that were irrelevant to the research goals were deleted. Other studies included narrative and systematic articles (n=3) and letters to the editor (n=1) were excluded. The full text of four articles could not be found. Finally, there were 19 studies left.

 

 

 

These studies (n=19) observed a total of 5,672 patients. Women comprised 40.67% (n=2,307) of the total sample. The patients were admitted to ICUs in the hospitals throughout Iran, including Mazandaran, Amol, Kermanshah, Mashhad, Tehran, Hamedan, Isfahan, Shiraz, Semnan, Rasht, and Urmia. The patients in medical intensive care units (MICU), neurosurgery intensive care units (NICU), surgery intensive care units (SICU), and general intensive care units (GICU) were monitored. Various tools were used to check the nutritional status of ICU patients in these 19 studies. NUTRIC and APACHE II used in five studies (25%), NRS (20%), SOFA (20%), and SGA (15%) scoring systems were placed in the next levels. BMI were recorded in 35% of the studied articles. Moreover, in 14 articles, the level of calorie and protein intake was significantly lower than the daily needs of the patients (23,26-37). Three studies (28,32,38) reported that the level of blood factors, such as albumin, significantly decreased among patients during hospitalization. In all studies, except for one (23), the results pointed to poor nutritional status among patients hospitalized in ICUs. Data extracted from the studies were presented in Tables 1 and 2.

 

Quality assessment of methodological approaches

Five of the submitted studies had an intermediate risk of bias, while others (14) had a low risk. An assessment of the quality of articles was displayed in Table 3 and Figure 2.

 

Figure 2. Quality of the articles to determine their bias

 

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to assess the nutritional health of adult patients hospitalized in ICUs of Iranian hospitals. According to the findings of this systematic review, the risk of malnutrition in ICU patients is very high. In most cases, patients hospitalized in these units were at high risk of malnutrition, which can generate a myriad of problems for the patient and ultimately, the healthcare system.

 

Types of feeding methods in critically ill patients

Nutrition support therapy administers EN and/or PN (39). In ICUs, nutritional support is recognized as an important aspect for management of critically ill patients (40,41). Enteral nutrition utilizing nasogastric tubes (NGTs) is typically used to address the nutritional demands of the majority of critically ill patients who have a functional gastrointestinal system but are unable to do this orally (42,43). Even though EN has shown promising clinical results and lowers the mortality of malnourished critically ill patients. The majority of patients receiving tube feedings have an intolerance to feeding tubes, including vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, abdominal distention, regurgitation, and high gastric residual volume (GRV) (44,45). In fact, a drawback of EN is a possible reduction in nutritional sufficiency, especially during the acute illness phase and in the presence of gastrointestinal dysfunction (6,46). On the other hand, the PN has repeatedly been demonstrated in previous reviews to be associated with more serious infectious problems, although potentially better securing the intended nutritional intake (47-51).

Factors influencing the measurement and diagnosis of nutritional risk

Various criteria, including food/nutritional intake, physical examination, disease severity, anthropometric data, and functional assessment, are applied to identify nutritional risk. Some tools to evaluate nutritional risk have been confirmed in the hospital setting. Since almost all critically ill patients require mechanical ventilation and sedation, achieve many of these requirements are challenging (52). The articles examined in this study include several methods for measuring and estimating the risk of malnutrition, such as measuring calories, protein, carbohydrates, and fat taken daily, recording changes in weight and BMI, or the amount of arm circumference or thickness of skin folds. Considering the enormous quantities required to maintain hemodynamic stability, changes in weight might be impacted by fluid status, making it more challenging to evaluate muscle and fat loss. Numerous conventional techniques lack information on inflammatory status, which is essential in an ICU patient since it is one of the causes of hypermetabolic status and consequently, muscle wasting (21). Hospital malnutrition should be identified early, and effective nutritional intervention procedures must be determined through appropriate instruments (53). For instance, Valizade (33) and Ramezani (27) suggested that the presence of nutritionists in the ICU is very necessary, and the patients who were under the supervision of nutritionists had a higher protein and energy intake compared to other patients, while the frequency of their nutrition was less.

 

Malnutrition assessment tools

Researchers use several tools to measure nutritional status, such as the Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 (NRS e2002) (54) and the NUTRIC score (22) for identifying critically ill patients who would benefit from nutritional therapy (NT). The NUTRIC score, a tool developed by Heyland et al., is the first nutritional risk assessment tool developed especially for the ICU patients, linking starvation, inflammation, and outcomes. It can identify patients who need more aggressive nutritional treatment and extensive nutritional support depending on their nutritional risk (22).

Among the advantages of this privilege, we can refer to the fact that this score improves the death rates and ventilation times of critically ill patients who benefit from intensive protein-energy provision during ICU stay. In order to stratify effects according to baseline risk, the effects of nutritional therapies for ICU patients with particular baseline characteristics were assessed by the NUTRIC score (55). Mishamandani et al. reported that patients' NUTRIC scores increased significantly with age (23). The NUTRIC score assess nutritional risk and associated outcomes (mortality and length of ventilation) through combining pre-hospitalization parameters, such as chronic BMI and acute starvation (pre-hospital admission duration) with acute Interleukin-6 and chronic inflammatory parameters (number of comorbidities), as well as the severity of illness based on APACHE-II classification system and SOFA-scores, on ICU admission.

The NUTRIC score has been validated and a high score is linked to a longer time spent on mechanical ventilation and a greater 28-day death rate. On the other hand, although the NUTRIC score was validated within the same database, limiting its applicability outside of that database (22). Moreover, this method lacks basic nutrition risk indicators, including BMI, weight status, oral intake, or physical examination, and its lack of nutrition history data may restrict its clinical applicability (56). Furthermore, PANDORA (57), recently introduced the Patient and Nutrition Derived Outcome Risk Assessment Score. Nonetheless, this score has not yet been validated in an ICU context.

The Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) is another nutritional risk assessment tool frequently used for hospitalized patients; however, it has limited efficacy in critically ill patients (56,58,59). Nevertheless, the Netherlands, for example, has been used MUST score as a quality measure for measuring hospitals for years. In Iran, Majari et al. (2021), in addition to the NUTRIC score, also used the MUST score to diagnose the risk of malnutrition among patients (26). It should also be highlighted that the MUST score was commonly utilized for critically ill patients until recently, when no other tool was available to assess nutritional risk in ICU patients (60). However, studies illustrated that the MUST score is less effective at predicting the future than the NUTRIC score. Furthermore, since it has not been validated in the ICU patients, the researchers suggest that the MUST score should not be used to assess nutritional risk in the ICU (55). The study by Majari also found that more energy intake was associated with a lower 28-day mortality rate in patients with a higher NUTRIC score (26). In the same context, Coltman et al. demonstrated that despite some restrictions, the SGA was thought to be the most useful instrument for evaluating nutrition status in the ICU population. It is worth noting that there was a considerable amount of overlap between various patient groups; moreover, the SGA and the NUTRIC score were able to identify nutritional risk or malnutrition despite their differences (56). In addition, Rosa et al. stated that in terms of patients requiring additional rehabilitation after discharge and ICU length of hospital stay, NUTRIC Score as a tool for identifying nutritional risk or malnutrition demonstrated similar outcomes to SGA; nonetheless, it was associated with high rate of mortality when compared to SGA (53).

The APACHE diagnostic scoring system was developed in 1981 to measure the severity of a condition. The tool used 34 physiologic variables to assess the level of illness. The APACHE scoring system has been the gold standard in intensive therapy. The APACHE score is directly correlated with hospital mortality. From time to time, new versions have been released (61). The 1985 release of APACHE II was a simplified improvement over APACHE (62). Three factors can be used to estimate the probability of death: patient's age, 12 acute physiological features (acute physiology score [APS]), chronic illnesses, and surgical interventions. Some applications of APACHE II are risk stratification, comparing the quality of care, and prognosis (63). Today, other versions of this tool have been introduced with some modifications. The studies conducted in Iran that were evaluated in this review also used different versions of the APACHE score (II and IV) (23,27,32,34,36). Researchers believe that these scoring systems have limitations in evaluating critically ill patients. For example, ICU mortality appeared to be the best outcome to discriminate between ICUs with good quality treatment (low risk-adjusted mortality) and ICUs with poor quality treatment (high risk-adjusted mortality). Prognostic indicators were established to compare the quality of health care provided by various ICUs. On the other hand, some authors have underlined that the prognostic significance of the grading systems that are currently available is heavily dependent on the treatment. Two patients who have a similar severity of disease may have significantly different scores based on whether or not they received adequate resuscitation (64). Another reason is that the prognosis assessment based on scores is only applicable to a research population, not to a specific patient. Furthermore, some parts of the scores are difficult to determine. A perfect diagnostic index should be based on factors identified in common regular examinations, applicable to a variety of patient populations, easily and broadly measured, and unrelated to treatment or individual opinions (65). Finally, the severity scores used nowadays are typically based on a prediction of death. Recent studies have demonstrated a new method for evaluating organ failure that emphasizes on morbidity than mortality (66).

Organ dysfunction/failure in critically ill patients can be described using the SOFA score, as demonstrated by Vincent et al., patients' conditions and disease progression can be observed and clarified with the help of regularly repeated scoring. The SOFA score could facilitate patient comparison, which would be useful for clinical trials (67). Respiratory, cardiovascular, renal, hematological, hepatic, and central nervous systems function are used to calculate the SOFA score, which evaluates organ dysfunction, morbidity, and mortality in the ICU patients (68). Some studies demonstrated that an increasing score of the SOFA(within the range of 0-4) indicates growing organ dysfunction (69). The mean score of SOFA was 6 in the studies evaluated in this paper, indicating that patients admitted to ICUs across the country have poor health status and receive inadequate and poor-quality nutrition (23,26,34,38).

One of the advantages of this systematic review study was the large number of cross-sectional longitudinal studies conducted in various cities around Iran that considered various hospitals and patients with severe diseases. On the other hand, the number of various assessment systems utilized in the studies can present problems with clarity of the results, considering that approved and recognized procedures were used in all of the studies around the world. However, the limitation of this study is the lack of a standardized measurement scale. The articles reviewed in this study utilized various methods for assessing and quantifying the risk of malnutrition, as well as measuring changes in weight, BMI, and other validated criteria. Furthermore, an additional crucial issue to consider is the varying lengths of stay for patients in the intensive care unit.

 

Implications for practice

The nutritional care services were in poor and inadequate condition in the hospitals included in this study. Furthermore, the patient's daily intake of calories, protein, and other nutrients was drastically less than the recommended amount, exerting adverse effects on patients and causing negative consequences. Researchers concluded that the presence of nutritionists is vital and necessary for each patient hospitalized in the ICU of Iranian hospitals. Nutritionists can contribute greatly to accelerated patient recovery and improving treatment progress by monitoring their health conditions and assessing their energy and nutritional requirements.

Acknowledgments

This study was approved by the Mashhad University of Medical Sciences with grant number 4020458. The authors would like to appreciate the cooperation of Nooshin Abdollahpour, who provided technical help and writing assistance.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Funding

There was no financial support for this study.

Authors' Contributions

Zahra Feyzabadi: Conception and design, Saeid Jamalie: Data collection, Benyamin Fazli: Data collection, Seyyed Saeed Shams: Data analysis, Mohaddeseh Badpeyma: Data collection, Alireza Sedaghat: Conception and design. All authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript and discussed on the manuscript.

  1. Araújo-Junqueira L, De-Souza DA. Enteral nutrition therapy for critically ill adult patients; critical review and algorithm creation. Nutrición Hospitalaria. 2012;27(4):999-1008.
  2. Corish CA, Kennedy NP. Protein–energy undernutrition in hospital in-patients. British Journal of Nutrition. 2000;83(6):575-91.
  3. Moriyama S, Okamoto K, Tabira Y, Kikuta K, Kukita I, Hamaguchi M, et al. Evaluation of oxygen consumption and resting energy expenditure in critically ill patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Critical care medicine. 1999;27(10):2133-6.
  4. Priestley G, Watson W, Rashidian A, Mozley C, Russell D, Wilson J, et al. Introducing Critical Care Outreach: a ward-randomised trial of phased introduction in a general hospital. Intensive care medicine. 2004;30:1398-404.
  5. Druyan ME, Compher C, Boullata JI, Braunschweig CL, George DE, Simpser E, et al. Clinical guidelines for the use of parenteral and enteral nutrition in adult and pediatric patients: applying the GRADE system to development of ASPEN clinical guidelines. JPEN Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition. 2012;36(1):77-80.
  6. Cahill NE, Dhaliwal R, Day AG, Jiang X, Heyland DK. Nutrition therapy in the critical care setting: what is “best achievable” practice? An international multicenter observational study. Critical care medicine. 2010;38(2):395-401.
  7. Yahyapoor F, Keshani M, Sedaghat A, Feizi A, Clark CC, Bagherniya M, et al. The effects of adjunctive treatment with l-carnitine on monitoring laboratory variables in ICU patients: a double-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial. Trials. 2023;24(1):3.
  8. Badpeyma M, Malekahmadi M, Sedaghat A, Norouzian Ostad A, Khadem-rezaiyan M, Pahlavani N, et al. Evaluation of Energy and Protein Intakes and Clinical Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients: Cross-sectional Study. Journal of Nutrition, Fasting and Health. 2023;11:172.
  9. Jones NE, Heyland DK. Pharmaconutrition: a new emerging paradigm. Current opinion in gastroenterology. 2008;24(2):215-22.
  10. Zhang Z, Xu X, Ding J, Ni H. Comparison of postpyloric tube feeding and gastric tube feeding in intensive care unit patients: a meta‐analysis. Nutrition in Clinical Practice. 2013;28(3):371-80.
  11. Blackburn GL, Wollner S, Bistrian BR. Nutrition support in the intensive care unit: an evolving science. Archives of Surgery. 2010;145(6):533-8.
  12. Scurlock C, Mechanick JI. Early nutrition support in the intensive care unit: a US perspective. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care. 2008;11(2):152-5.
  13. Rubinsky MD, Clark AP. Early enteral nutrition in critically ill patients. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing. 2012;31(5):267-74.
  14. Chourdakis M, Kraus MM, Tzellos T, Sardeli C, Peftoulidou M, Vassilakos D, et al. Effect of early compared with delayed enteral nutrition on endocrine function in patients with traumatic brain injury: an open‐labeled randomized trial. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. 2012;36(1):108-16.
  15. Serón-Arbeloa C, Puzo-Foncillas J, Garcés-Gimenez T, Escós-Orta J, Labarta-Monzón L, Lander-Azcona A. A retrospective study about the influence of early nutritional support on mortality and nosocomial infection in the critical care setting. Clinical nutrition. 2011;30(3):346-50.
  16. Correia MIT, Waitzberg DL. The impact of malnutrition on morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay and costs evaluated through a multivariate model analysis. Clinical nutrition. 2003;22(3):235-9.
  17. Schneider SM, Veyres P, Pivot X, Soummer AM, Jambou P, Filippi J, et al. Malnutrition is an independent factor associated with nosocomial infections. British journal of nutrition. 2004;92(1):105-11.
  18. Chandra RK, Kumari S. Effects of nutrition on the immune system. Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif). 1994;10(3):207-10.
  19. Van Der Hulst RR, Von Meyenfeldt MF, Van Kreel BK, Thunnissen FB, Brummer RJ, Arends JW, et al. Gut permeability, intestinal morphology, and nutritional depletion. Nutrition. 1998;14(1):1-16.
  20. Haydock DA, Hill GL. Impaired wound healing in surgical patients with varying degrees of malnutrition. Journal of Parenteral and enteral nutrition. 1986;10(6):550-4.
  21. Preiser JC, van Zanten AR, Berger MM, Biolo G, Casaer MP, Doig GS, et al. Metabolic and nutritional support of critically ill patients: consensus and controversies. Critical care. 2015;19(1):1-11.
  22. Heyland DK, Dhaliwal R, Jiang X, Day AG. Identifying critically ill patients who benefit the most from nutrition therapy: the development and initial validation of a novel risk assessment tool. Critical care. 2011;15:1-11.
  23. Mishamandani ZJ, Norouzy A, Hashemian SM, Khoundabi B, Rezaeisadrabadi M, Safarian M, et al. Nutritional status of patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit: A comprehensive report from Iranian hospitals, 2018. Journal of critical care. 2019;54:151-8.
  24. Hashemian SM, Martindale RG, Jamaati H, Amirsavadkouhi A, Azer SM, Shadnoush M, et al. An Iranian consensus document for nutrition in critically ill patients, recommendations and initial steps toward regional guidelines. Tanaffos. 2017;16(2):89-98.
  25. Higgins JP, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2022 [Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current.
  26. Majari K, Imani H, Hosseini S, Amirsavadkouhi A, Ardehali SH, Khalooeifard R. Comparison of Modified NUTRIC, NRS‐2002, and MUST Scores in Iranian Critically Ill Patients Admitted to Intensive Care Units: A Prospective Cohort Study. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. 2021;45(7):1504-13.
  27. Ramezani Kapourchali F, Malekshahi Moghadam A, Dehnadi Moghadam A, Yousefzadeh-Chabok S, Toorang F, Javanbakht MH, et al. The Role of Dietitian in Improving Energy and Protein Intake in Traumatic Brain Injury Patients Admitted to the Neurosurgical Intensive Care Unit. Iranian Journal of Neurosurgery. 2019;5(3):109-16.
  28. Daneshzad E, Azadbakhat L, Neamani F, Abasi S, Shirani F, Adibi P. Nutritional assessment in critically ill patients. Journal of Nutritional Sciences and Dietetics. 2015:157-64.
  29. Zoroufchi BH, Abdollahpour A, Hemmati HR. Nutritional status of trauma patients hospitalized at surgical intensive care unit. European Journal of Translational Myology. 2020;30(2):8721.
  30. Afshari H, Shohrati M, Parastouei K, Mashhadi Akbar Boojar M. Enteral and Parenteral Nutrition in Patients Admitted to Referral Teaching Hospital and Comparison of Their Effects with Existing Standards. Journal of Iranian Medical Council. 2020;3(3):131-8.
  31. Nasimi S, Aberoomand L, Mousavi-Shirazifard Z, Masjedi M, Nikbakht Jam I, Sabetian G, et al. Evaluation of Patient's Energy Intake between Different Types of Formulas in the First Week of Starting Enteral Feeding in Intensive Care Unit Patients. Razavi International Journal of Medicine. 2018;6(3):31-5.
  32. Rafiee S, Safari Z, Shokri-Mashhadi N. Current nutritional statuses and gastrointestinal complications in critically ill patients admitted to ICUs in Iran: a cross-sectional study. Nutrition and Food Sciences Research. 2020;7(3):9-14.
  33. Valizade Hasanloei MA, Vahabzadeh D, Shargh A, Atmani A, Alizadeh Osalou R. A prospective study of energy and protein intakes in critically ill patients. JPEN Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition. 2018;23:162-6.
  34. Osooli F, Abbas S, Farsaei S. Identifying Critically Ill Patients at Risk of Malnutrition and Underfeeding: A Prospective Study at an Academic Hospital. Advanced Pharmaceutical Bulletin. 2019;9(2):314-20.
  35. Hejazi N, Mazloom Z, Zand F, Rezaianzadeh A, Amini A. Nutritional assessment in critically ill patients. Iranian journal of medical sciences. 2016;41(3):171-9.
  36. Nachvak M, Hedayati S, Hejazi N, Motamedi Motlagh A, Shafizade A, Shojaee M. Nutritional assessment in ICU patients with enteral feeding in Amol hospitals. Razi Journal of Medical Sciences. 2018;24(163):92-104.
  37. Yousefzadeh S, Shabbidar S, Dehnadi Moghaddam A, Ahmadi Dafchahi M. Assessment of nutritional support in head trauma patients in neurosurgery intensive care unit. Journal of Gorgan University of Medical Sciences. 2007;9(3):53-8.
  38. Nachvak SM, Hedayati S, Hejazi N, Motamedi-Motlagh A, Abdollahzad H. Nutritional care and balance of energy in patients hospitalized in Iranian intensive care units. Nutrition Clinique et Métabolisme. 2018;32(2):122-8.
  39. Compher C, Bingham AL, McCall M, Patel J, Rice TW, Braunschweig C, et al. Guidelines for the provision of nutrition support therapy in the adult critically ill patient: The American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. 2022;46(1):12-41.
  40. Hooper MH, Marik PE. Controversies and misconceptions in intensive care unit nutrition. Clinics in chest medicine. 2015;36(3):409-18.
  41. Ridley E, Gantner D, Pellegrino V. Nutrition therapy in critically ill patients-a review of current evidence for clinicians. Clinical Nutrition. 2015;34(4):565-71.
  42. Lasierra JF, Pérez-Vela J, González JM. Enteral nutrition in the hemodynamically unstable critically ill patient. Medicina Intensiva (English Edition). 2015;39(1):40-8.
  43. McClave SA, Martindale RG, Rice TW, Heyland DK. Feeding the critically ill patient. Critical care medicine. 2014;42(12):2600-10.
  44. Madl C, Holzinger U. Nutrition and gastrointestinal intolerance. Medizinische Klinik-Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin. 2013;108:396-400.
  45. Blaser AR, Starkopf J, Kirsimägi Ü, Deane A. Definition, prevalence, and outcome of feeding intolerance in intensive care: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. 2014;58(8):914-22.
  46. Gungabissoon U, Hacquoil K, Bains C, Irizarry M, Dukes G, Williamson R, et al. Prevalence, risk factors, clinical consequences, and treatment of enteral feed intolerance during critical illness. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. 2015;39(4):441-8.
  47. Braunschweig CL, Levy P, Sheean PM, Wang X. Enteral compared with parenteral nutrition: a meta-analysis. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2001;74(4):534-42.
  48. Gramlich L, Kichian K, Pinilla J, Rodych NJ, Dhaliwal R, Heyland DK. Does enteral nutrition compared to parenteral nutrition result in better outcomes in critically ill adult patients? A systematic review of the literature. Nutrition. 2004;20(10):843-8.
  49. Heyland DK, MacDonald S, Keefe L, Drover JW. Total parenteral nutrition in the critically ill patient: a meta-analysis. Jama. 1998;280(23):2013-9.
  50. Peter JV, Moran JL, Phillips-Hughes J. A metaanalysis of treatment outcomes of early enteral versus early parenteral nutrition in hospitalized patients. Critical care medicine. 2005;33(1):213-20.
  51. Yao H, He C, Deng L, Liao G. Enteral versus parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients with severe pancreatitis: a meta-analysis. European journal of clinical nutrition. 2018;72(1):66-8.
  52. Mendes R, Policarpo S, Fortuna P, Alves M, Virella D, Heyland DK, et al. Nutritional risk assessment and cultural validation of the modified NUTRIC score in critically ill patients—a multicenter prospective cohort study. Journal of critical care. 2017;37:45-9.
  53. Rosa M, Heyland DK, Fernandes D, Rabito EI, Oliveira ML, Marcadenti A. Translation and adaptation of the NUTRIC Score to identify critically ill patients who benefit the most from nutrition therapy. Clinical nutrition ESPEN. 2016;14:31-6.
  54. Kondrup J, Rasmussen HH, Hamberg O, Stanga Z, Group AahEW. Nutritional risk screening (NRS 2002): a new method based on an analysis of controlled clinical trials. Clinical nutrition. 2003;22(3):321-36.
  55. de Vries MC, Koekkoek W, Opdam MH, van Blokland D, van Zanten AR. Nutritional assessment of critically ill patients: validation of the modified NUTRIC score. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2018;72(3):428-35.
  56. Coltman A, Peterson S, Roehl K, Roosevelt H, Sowa D. Use of 3 tools to assess nutrition risk in the intensive care unit. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. 2015;39(1):28-33.
  57. Hiesmayr M, Frantal S, Schindler K, Themessl-Huber M, Mouhieddine M, Schuh C, et al. The patient-and nutrition-derived outcome risk assessment score (PANDORA): development of a simple predictive risk score for 30-day in-hospital mortality based on demographics, clinical observation, and nutrition. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0127316.
  58. Guaitoli PR, Jansma EP, de Vet HC. Nutrition screening tools: does one size fit all? A systematic review of screening tools for the hospital setting. Clinical Nutrition. 2014;33(1):39-58.
  59. Elia M. Screening for malnutrition: a multidisciplinary responsibility. development and use of the ‘malnutrition universal screening tool’ (‘MUST’) for adults. 2016 [Available from: https://www.bapen.org.uk/.
  60. Inspectie voor de Gezondheidszorg. Basisset kwaliteitsindicatoren ziekenhuizen 2015. Utrecht: Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport; 2014 1 July 2015 [Available from: https://www.igj.nl/?utm_source=igz.nl&utm_medium=redirect&utm_campaign=redirect.
  61. Knaus WA, Zimmerman JE, Wagner DP, Draper EA, Lawrence DE. APACHE—acute physiology and chronic health evaluation: a physiologically based classification system. Critical care medicine. 1981;9(8):591-7.
  62. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Critical care medicine. 1985;13(10):818-29.
  63. Niewiński G, Starczewska MH, Kański A. Prognostic scoring systems for mortality in intensive care units—the APACHE model. Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy. 2014;46(1):46-9.
  64. Rutledge R. The Injury Severity Score is unable to differentiate between poor care and severe injury. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 1996;40(6):944-50.
  65. Fery-Lemonnier E, Landais P, Loirat P, Kleinknecht D, Brivet F. Evaluation of severity scoring systems in ICUs—translation, conversion and definition ambiguities as a source of inter-observer variability in Apache II, SAPS and OSF. Intensive Care Medicine. 1995;21:356-60.
  66. Petros A, Marshall J. Should morbidity replace mortality as an endpoint for clinical trials in intensive care? The Lancet. 1995;345(8946):369-71.
  67. Vincent JL, De Mendonça A, Cantraine F, Moreno R, Takala J, Suter PM, et al. Use of the SOFA score to assess the incidence of organ dysfunction/failure in intensive care units: results of a multicenter, prospective study. Critical Care Medicine. 1998;26(11):1793-800.
  68. Moreno R, Vincent JL, Matos R, Mendonca A, Cantraine F, Thijs L, et al. The use of maximum SOFA score to quantify organ dysfunction/failure in intensive care. Results of a prospective, multicentre study. Intensive Care Medicine. 1999;25:686-96.
  69. Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, Willatts S, De Mendonça A, Bruining H, et al. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure: On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Springer-Verlag; 1996.
  70. Nematy M, Mohajeri SAR, Moghadam SA, Safarian M, Norouzy A, Parizadeh SMR, et al. Nutritional status in intensive care unit patients: a prospective clinical cohort pilot study. Mediterranean Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism. 2012;5:163-8.
  71. Kimiaei-Asadi H, Tavakolitalab A. The assessment of the malnutrition in traumatic ICU patients in Iran. Electronic Physician. 2017;9(6):4689-93.
  72. Shabanpur M, Nachvak SM, Moradi S, Hedayati S, Hosseinikia M, Pasdar Y, et al. Nutritional Care in Iranian Intensive Care Units. Clinical Nutrition Research. 2018;7(2):136-45.
  73. Javid Z, Shadnoush M, Khadem-Rezaiyan M, Honarvar NMZ, Sedaghat A, Hashemian SM, et al. Nutritional adequacy in critically ill patients: Result of PNSI study. Clinical Nutrition. 2021;40(2):511-7.
  74. Ahmadi S, Firoozi D, Dehghani M, Zare M, Mehrabi Z, Ghaseminasab-Parizi M, et al. Evaluation of Nutritional Status of Intensive Care Unit COVID-19 Patients Based on the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 Score. International Journal of Clinical Practice. 2022;2022(1): 2448161.