2011 SEMICYUC-SENPE共识 重症患者营养与代谢专业支持指导指南（第一章）：介绍与方法论

中文标题：

2011 SEMICYUC-SENPE共识 重症患者营养与代谢专业支持指导指南（第一章）：介绍与方法论

英文标题：

Guidelines for specialized nutritional and metabolic support in the critically-ill patient: Update. Consensus SEMICYUC-SENPE: Introduction and methodology

发布机构：

西班牙肠外肠内营养学会

发布日期：

2011-12-01

简要介绍：

The Recommendations for Specialized NutritionalSupport in Critically-Ill patients were drafted by theMetabolism and Nutrition Working Group of the SpanishSociety of Intensive Care Medicine and Coronary Units(SEMICYUC) in 2005. Given the time elapsed since then,these recommendations have been reviewed and updatedas a Consensus Document in collaboration with the SpanishSociety of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (SENPE).The primary aim of these Recommendations was toevaluate the best available scientific evidence for the indicationsof specialized nutritional and metabolic supportin critically-ill patients. The Recommendations have beenformulated by an expert panel with broad experience innutritional and metabolic support in critically-ill patientsand were drafted between October 2009 and March 2011.The studies analyzed encompassed metaanalyses, randomizedclinical trials, observational studies, systematicreviews and updates relating to critically-ill adults inMEDLINE from 1966 to 2010, EMBASE reviews from1991 to 2010 and the Cochrane Database of SystematicReviews up to 2010. The methodological criteria selectedwere those established in the Scottish IntercollegiateGuidelines Network and the Agency for Health Care policyand Research, as well as those of the Jadad Quality Scale.Adjustment for the level of evidence and grade of recommendationwas performed following the proposal of theGRADE group (Grading of Recommendations Assessment,Development and Evaluation Working Group).Sixteen pathological scenarios were selected and eachof them was developed by groups of three experts. A feedbacksystem was established with the five members of theEditorial Committee and with the entire Working Group.All discrepancies were discussed and consensus wasreached over several meetings, with special emphasisplaced on reviewing the levels of evidence and grades ofrecommendation. The Editorial Committee made the