| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2684477 | Clinical Nutrition | 2007 | 5 Pages |
SummaryBackground & aimsTwo different ways of thinking pervaded the history of science: rationalism and empiricism. In theory, these two paradigms are not necessarily in conflict. In practice, there has always been tension between them. The coming of evidence-based medicine put empiricism in a privileged position, but empiricism without a rationalistic guide could even be usefulness. The aim of this work is to present the tension between the rational reasons to administer immunonutrients to patients with sepsis and the controversial empirical evidence stemming from clinical trials.MethodsWe reviewed the literature on immunonutrition in sepsis from the rationalist and the empiricist perspectives.ResultsThe large body of evidence for positive effects of immunonutrients in experimental models and the contradictory results from clinical trials make the discussion on immunonutrition in sepsis a typical example where the conflict between rationalism and empiricism hampered the advancement of knowledge and the implementation of new effective therapies into clinical practice.ConclusionsFuture research projects involving immunonutrients should be based on robust knowledge of basic mechanisms of action to be properly addressed in clinical trials.
