Actively implementing an evidence-based feeding guideline for critically ill patients (NEED): a multicenter, cluster-randomized, controlled trial

Background: Previous cluster-randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of implementing evidence-based guidelines for nutrition therapy in critical illness do not consistently demonstrate patient benefits. A large-scale, sufficiently powered study is therefore warranted to ascertain the effects of guideline implementation on patient-centered outcomes. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cluster-randomized, parallel-controlled trial in intensive care units (ICUs) across China. We developed an evidence-based feeding guideline. ICUs randomly allocated to the guideline group formed a local "intervention team", which actively implemented the guideline using standardized educational materials, a graphical feeding protocol, and live online education outreach meetings conducted by members of the study management committee. ICUs assigned to the control group remained unaware of the guideline content. All ICUs enrolled patients who were expected to stay in the ICU longer than seven days. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 28 days of enrollment. Results: Forty-eight ICUs were randomized to the guideline group and 49 to the control group. From March 2018 to July 2019, the guideline ICUs enrolled 1399 patients, and the control ICUs enrolled 1373 patients. Implementation of the guideline resulted in significantly earlier EN initiation (1.20 vs. 1.55 mean days to initiation of EN; difference − 0.40 [95% CI − 0.71 to − 0.09]; P = 0.01) and delayed PN initiation (1.29 vs. 0.80 mean days to start of PN; difference 1.06 [95% CI 0.44 to 1.67]; P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (14.2% vs. 15.2%; difference − 1.6% [95% CI − 4.3% to 1.2%]; P = 0.42) between groups. Conclusions: In this large-scale, multicenter trial, active implementation of an evidence-based feeding guideline reduced the time to commencement of EN and overall PN use but did not translate to a reduction in mortality from critical illness. Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN12233792. Registered November 20th, 2017

Actively implementing an evidence-based feeding guideline for critically ill patients (NEED): a multicenter, cluster-randomized, controlled trial (vol 26, 46, 2022)

BackgroundPrevious cluster-randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of implementing evidence-based guidelines for nutrition therapy in critical illness do not consistently demonstrate patient benefits. A large-scale, sufficiently powered study is therefore warranted to ascertain the effects of guideline implementation on patient-centered outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, cluster-randomized, parallel-controlled trial in intensive care units (ICUs) across China. We developed an evidence-based feeding guideline. ICUs randomly allocated to the guideline group formed a local "intervention team", which actively implemented the guideline using standardized educational materials, a graphical feeding protocol, and live online education outreach meetings conducted by members of the study management committee. ICUs assigned to the control group remained unaware of the guideline content. All ICUs enrolled patients who were expected to stay in the ICU longer than seven days. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 28 days of enrollment.ResultsForty-eight ICUs were randomized to the guideline group and 49 to the control group. From March 2018 to July 2019, the guideline ICUs enrolled 1399 patients, and the control ICUs enrolled 1373 patients. Implementation of the guideline resulted in significantly earlier EN initiation (1.20 vs. 1.55 mean days to initiation of EN; difference - 0.40 [95% CI - 0.71 to - 0.09]; P = 0.01) and delayed PN initiation (1.29 vs. 0.80 mean days to start of PN; difference 1.06 [95% CI 0.44 to 1.67]; P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (14.2% vs. 15.2%; difference - 1.6% [95% CI - 4.3% to 1.2%]; P = 0.42) between groups.ConclusionsIn this large-scale, multicenter trial, active implementation of an evidence-based feeding guideline reduced the time to commencement of EN and overall PN use but did not translate to a reduction in mortality from critical illness.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN12233792 . Registered November 20th, 2017

Actively implementing an evidence-based feeding guideline for critically ill patients (NEED): a multicenter, cluster-randomized, controlled trial.

BackgroundPrevious cluster-randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of implementing evidence-based guidelines for nutrition therapy in critical illness do not consistently demonstrate patient benefits. A large-scale, sufficiently powered study is therefore warranted to ascertain the effects of guideline implementation on patient-centered outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, cluster-randomized, parallel-controlled trial in intensive care units (ICUs) across China. We developed an evidence-based feeding guideline. ICUs randomly allocated to the guideline group formed a local "intervention team", which actively implemented the guideline using standardized educational materials, a graphical feeding protocol, and live online education outreach meetings conducted by members of the study management committee. ICUs assigned to the control group remained unaware of the guideline content. All ICUs enrolled patients who were expected to stay in the ICU longer than seven days. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 28 days of enrollment.ResultsForty-eight ICUs were randomized to the guideline group and 49 to the control group. From March 2018 to July 2019, the guideline ICUs enrolled 1399 patients, and the control ICUs enrolled 1373 patients. Implementation of the guideline resulted in significantly earlier EN initiation (1.20 vs. 1.55 mean days to initiation of EN; difference - 0.40 [95% CI - 0.71 to - 0.09]; P = 0.01) and delayed PN initiation (1.29 vs. 0.80 mean days to start of PN; difference 1.06 [95% CI 0.44 to 1.67]; P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (14.2% vs. 15.2%; difference - 1.6% [95% CI - 4.3% to 1.2%]; P = 0.42) between groups.ConclusionsIn this large-scale, multicenter trial, active implementation of an evidence-based feeding guideline reduced the time to commencement of EN and overall PN use but did not translate to a reduction in mortality from critical illness.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN12233792 . Registered November 20th, 2017

A Scaling Transition Method from SGDM to SGD with 2ExpLR Strategy

In deep learning, the vanilla stochastic gradient descent (SGD) and SGD with heavy-ball momentum (SGDM) methods have a wide range of applications due to their simplicity and great generalization. This paper uses an exponential scaling method to realize a smooth and stable transition from SGDM to SGD, which combines the advantages of the fast training speed of SGDM and the accurate convergence of SGD (named TSGD). We also provide some theoretical results on the convergence of this algorithm. At the same time, we take advantage of the learning rate warmup strategy’s stability and the learning rate decay strategy’s high accuracy. A warmup–decay learning rate strategy with double exponential functions is proposed (named 2ExpLR). The experimental results on different datasets for the proposed algorithms indicate that the accuracy is improved significantly and that the training is faster and more stable

The Effect of Maximum Residue Limits on Agri-Food Trade: Evidence from Chinese Exports to the EU

There is debate about whether maximum residue limits (MRLs) for pesticides act as a catalyst or barrier to trade. By constructing a trade model based on heterogeneous firm quality and productivity, we show that MRLs’ net effects on total export value, the number of exporting firms, and the average export value per firm depend on the interplay between the effect on import demand and that on variable and fixed compliance costs. We employ firm-level transaction data for agri-food products exported from China to the European Union (EU). We use heterogeneity indices that combine the number and level of MRLs to measure MRL stringency between China and the EU; a Poisson pseudo-maximum-likelihood estimator with fixed effects is used for estimation. We find that stricter MRLs, whether imposed by China or the EU, promote China’s agri-food exports to the EU. However, such promotion effects are heterogeneous across agri-food-exporting firms. In China, updates to MRL standards improve agri-food-exporting firms’ ability to comply with stricter MRLs. Public investment and services help reduce compliance costs. Our findings provide new evidence that MRLs are not new non-tariff measures adopted to replace reduced import tariffs