Background Evidence on the benefits of fiber‑supplemented enteral nutrition (EN) in critically ill patients is inconsistent, and critical care nutrition guidelines lack recommendations based on high‑quality evidence. This systematic review and meta‑analysis (SRMA) aims to provide a current synthesis of the literature on this topic. Methods For this SRMA of randomized controlled trials (RCT), electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) were searched systematically from inception to January 2024 and updated in June 2024. Trials investigating clinical effects of fiber‑supplemented EN versus placebo or usual care in adult critically ill patients were selected. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Random‑effect meta‑analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were conducted. The primary outcome was overall mortality, and one of the secondary outcomes was diarrhea incidence. Subgroup analyses were also performed for both outcomes. Results Twenty studies with 1405 critically ill patients were included. In conventional meta‑analysis, fiber‑supplemented EN was associated with a significant reduction of overall mortality (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47, 0.92, p = 0.01, I2 = 0%; 12 studies) and diarrhea incidence (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51, 0.96, p = 0.03, I2 = 51%; 11 studies). However, both outcomes were assessed to have very serious risk of bias, and, according to TSA, a type‑1 error cannot be ruled out. No subgroup differences were found for the primary outcome. Conclusion Very low‑certainty evidence suggests that fiber‑supplemented EN has clinical benefits. High‑quality multicenter RCTs with large sample sizes are needed to substantiate any firm recommendation for its routine use in this group of patients.
Jana Larissa Koch (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: