Audrey Machado dos Reis

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are essential tools to support evidence‐based nutritional care in critically ill patients; however, the methodological quality and credibility of recommendations for nutritional risk screening remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of CPGs addressing nutritional risk screening in critically ill adults and to critically appraise the evidence supporting these recommendations. A systematic search was conducted between January and April 2026 in Embase, PubMed, SciELO, Scopus, LILACS, Google Scholar, and guideline repositories. CPGs, consensus statements, and position papers, including nutritional risk screening recommendations for critically ill adults were eligible. Guideline quality was assessed using the AGREE II and AGREE‐REX instruments. Original studies and systematic reviews supporting nutritional risk screening recommendations were critically appraised using ROBINS‐E and AMSTAR 2, respectively. Four CPGs were included. AGREE II assessment demonstrated satisfactory methodological quality overall, particularly in Scope and Purpose (84.4%) and Clarity of Presentation (92.0%), whereas Applicability showed the lowest performance (50.0%). AGREE‐REX evaluation demonstrated moderate overall recommendation quality (64.8%), with the Chinese Society of Critical Care Medicine guideline presenting the highest score (77.8%). Most original studies supporting recommendations were classified as having high or very high risk of bias, and one systematic review was classified as critically low confidence. Although the included guidelines demonstrated satisfactory methodological quality, important limitations were identified regarding recommendation credibility, applicability, and evidence quality. These findings highlight the need for higher‐quality evidence synthesis, transparent risk‐of‐bias assessment, and improved implementation strategies in future guideline development.

Objective To evaluate the agreement between the modified version of the Nutritional Risk in the Critically Ill Score (without Interleukin-6) and a variant composed of C-Reactive Protein as well as its capacity to predict mortality. Methods A prospective cohort study was carried out with 315 patients in an Intensive Care Unit of a university hospital from October 2017 to April 2018. The agreement between the instruments was evaluated using the Kappa test. The predictive capacity for estimating mortality was assessed with the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve. Results The critical patients involved in the study had a mean age of 60.8±16.3 years and 53.5% were female. Most patients had C-Reactive Protein levels ?10mg/dL (n=263, 83.5%) and their admission in the Intensive Care Unit was medical (n=219, 69.5%). The prevalence of mortality was observed in 41.0% of the evaluated patients. The proportions at high nutritional risk according to Nutritional Risk in the Critically Ill without Interleukin-6 and with C-Reactive Protein were 57.5% and 55.6%, respectively. The tools showed strong and significant agreement(Kappa=0.935; p=0.020) and satisfactory performances in predicting mortality (area under the curve 0.695 [0.636-0.754] and 0.699 [0.640-0.758]). Conclusion Both versions of the Nutritional Risk in the Critically Ill tool show a satisfactory agreement and performance as predictors of mortality in critically ill patients. Further analysis of this variant and the association between nutrition adequacy and mortality is needed.

To collect data on the use of The Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill (NUTRIC) score. A systematic literature search was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Reviews, abstracts, dissertations, protocols and case reports were excluded from this review; to be included in the review, studies needed to specifically evaluate the NUTRIC score and to have been published in English, Spanish or Portuguese. We included 12 (0.8%) studies from our search in this review. Ten studies (83.3%) were observational, 1 was a pilot study (8.3%) and 1 was a randomized control trial (8.3%). All of the included studies (100%) chose not to use IL-6 and considered a high nutritional risk cutoff point ≥ 5. There were 11 (91.7%) English language studies versus 1 (8.3%) Spanish language study. Mechanical ventilation and a high NUTRIC score were significantly correlated in four studies. The association between intensive care unit or hospital length of stay and nutritional high risk was significant in three studies. Seven studies found a statistically significant association between the NUTRIC score and mortality. The NUTRIC score is related to clinical outcomes, such as length of hospital stay, and is appropriate for use in critically ill patients in intensive care units.

To meet the nutritional requirements of patients admitted to intensive care units, it is necessary to establish a diet schedule. Complications associated with enteral nutrition by tube feeding are not uncommon and may reduce the delivery of required nutrient to patients in intensive care units. Research on the osmolality, fat content, caloric intensity and fiber content of formulas are under way, and a substantial number of studies have focused on fiber content tolerability or symptom reduction. We conducted a systematic review of dietary fiber use and safety in critically ill patients in 8 studies based on diarrhea, other gastrointestinal symptoms (abdominal distension, gastric residual volume, vomiting and constipation), intestinal microbiota, length of stay in the intensive care unit and death. We discussed the results reported in the scientific literature and current recommendations. This contemporary approach demonstrated that the use of soluble fiber in all hemodynamically stable, critically ill patients is safe and should be considered beneficial for reducing the incidence of diarrhea in this population.

Biochemical markers produced by the affected organ or body in response to disease have gained high clinical value due to assess disease development and being excellent predictors of morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study is to analyze different biochemical markers in critically cancer patients and to determine which of them can be used as predictors of mortality. This is a prospective, cross-sectional study conducted at a University Hospital in Porto Alegre - RS. Screening was done to include patients in the study. Serum biochemical markers obtained in the first 24 hours of Intensive Care Unit hospitalization were analyzed. A second review of medical records occurred after three months objected to identify death or Unit discharged. A sample of 130 individuals was obtained (control group n = 65, study group n = 65). In the multivariate model, serum magnesium values OR = 3.97 (1.17; 13.5), presence of neoplasia OR = 2.68 (95% CI 1.13; 6.37) and absence of sepsis OR = 0.31 (95% CI 0.12; 0.79) were robust predictors of mortality. The association of solid tumors, sepsis presence and alteration in serum magnesium levels resulted in an increased chance of mortality in critically ill patients.