HeylandDKCookDJGuyattGH. Enteral nutrition in the critically ill patient: A critical review of the evidence. Intensive Care Med1993;19:435–42.
2.
Kohn-KeethCShottSOlreeK. The effects of rinsing enteral delivery sets on formula contamination. NCP1996;11:269–73.
3.
DentingerBFaucherKJOstromSM. Controlling bacterial contamination of an enteral formula through the use of a unique closed system: Contamination, enteral formulas, closed system. Nutrition1995;11:747–50.
4.
WagnerDRElmoreMFKnollDM. Evaluation of ”open” systems for the delivery of peptide-based enteral diets. JPEN1994;18:453–7.
5.
AndersonKRNorrisDJGodfreyLB. Bacterial contamination of tube-feeding formulas. JPEN1984;8:673–8.
6.
PerezSKBrandtK. Enteral feeding contamination: Comparison of diluents and feeding bag usage. JPEN1989; 13:306–8.
7.
LevyJLaethemYVVerhaegenG. Contaminated enteral nutrition solution as a cause of nosocomial bloodstream infection: A study using plasmid fingerprinting. JPEN1989;13:228–34.
8.
ThurnJCrossleyJJSmithJD. Enteral hyperalimentation as a source of nosocomial infection. J Hosp Infect1990;15:203–17.
9.
ChanLYasminAHNgeowYE. Evaluation of the bacteriological contamination of a closed feeding system for enteral nutrition. Med J Malaysia1994;49:62–7.
10.
DrummondMFStoddartGLTorranceGW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Toronto: Oxford Medical Publications, Oxford University Press, 1990;39–71.
11.
The Canadian Coordinating Office of Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals, 2nd ed.Ottawa, Ontario: The Canadian Coordinating Office of Health Technology Assessment, 1997.
12.
SibbaldWJInmanKJ. The difficulty in assessing the technology of critical care medicine. Int J Technol Assess Health Care1992;8:419–37.
13.
AdamSBatsonS. A study of problems associated with the delivery of enteral feed in critically ill patients in five ICUs in the UK. Intensive Care Med1997;23:261–6.
