Study	Reason for exclusion
Alberda 2009	Non‐randomized or quasi‐randomized controlled trial. Observational cohort study to examine the relationship between the amount of energy and protein administered and clinical outcomes.
Arabi 2010	Non‐randomized or quasi‐randomized controlled trial assessing hypocaloric nutrition versus control. It is a nested cohort study of participants enrolled in a randomized controlled clinical trial that compared intensive to conventional insulin therapy. The clinical outcomes were analysed according to tertiles of caloric administration.
Berg 2013	Study of whole‐body protein turnover with d5‐phenylalanine and 13C.leucine tracers. The only clinical parameter evaluated was nitrogen balance.
Casadei 2006	Non‐randomized nor quasi‐randomized controlled trial. Retrospective study
Desachy 2008	Not primarily hypocaloric nutrition support study; the goal was to evaluate caloric intake and tolerability of 2 early enteral nutrition protocols in which the optimal flow rate was introduced either immediately or gradually.
Dickerson 2002	Non‐randomized or quasi‐randomized controlled trial. Retrospective study
Dissanaike 2007	Not hypocaloric nutrition support study. Not randomized clinical trial (cohort study)
Doig 2013	Multicentre, randomized, single‐blind clinical trial in critically‐ill adults with relative contraindications to early enteral nutrition. Random allocation to pragmatic standard care or early parenteral nutrition. The objective was different from prescribed hypocaloric nutrition (determine if early parenteral nutrition alters outcomes). No numerical data of calories administered to the groups (only in 1 figure).
Esterle 2010	Hypocaloric nutrition support was not evaluated. Their goal was to evaluate if volume‐based enteral nutrition causes less caloric deficit than rate‐base feeding in critically‐ill ventilated participants.
Fiaccadori 2005	Not hypocaloric nutrition support trial. Open‐label, cross‐over trial in critically‐ill people with acute renal failure and renal replacement therapy, comparing iso‐nitrogenous parenteral nutrition providing 30 and 40 kcal/kg/day (normocaloric versus hypercaloric parenteral nutrition)
Garrel 1995	Not hypocaloric nutrition support trial. They compared isocaloric enteral nutrition with less fat (but more carbohydrates) in people with burns.
Iapichino 1990	Non‐randomized or quasi‐randomized controlled trial assessing hypocaloric nutrition versus control. During 3 days, the participants received randomly 4 different types of parenteral nutrition (2 types of amino acids and 2 different doses of glucose). The authors only assessed metabolic outcomes (no clinical outcomes).
Lau 2010	Retrospective study to evaluate 3 different caloric regimes on the incidence of hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia in critically‐ill participants on intensive insulin treatment
Mackenzie 2005	Not a prospective controlled trial of hypocaloric nutrition support. Prospective study to evaluate the proportion of participants meeting their caloric goals with the implementation of an evidence‐based enteral nutrition protocol.
Moses 2009	Hypocaloric nutrition support was not evaluated against normo‐ or hypercaloric feeding. Prospective controlled randomized trial realized exclusively in ventilated participants with acute organophosphate poisoning, to evaluate if enteral nutrition could be possible (due to the treatment with high dose of atropine) and had different clinical outcomes than the participants on intravenous fluids
Müller 1995	Not randomized trial to study the metabolic effects of different caloric regimens in medical participants with multiple organ failures. The participants received 7 parenteral nutrition regimens with different amounts of calories, carbohydrates, amino‐acids and lipids, for 12 hours each regimen.
Owais 2014	Single‐blinded randomized clinical trial of 50 consecutive participants requiring parenteral nutritional support; permissive underfeeding in participants requiring parenteral nutrition. Participants were randomized to receive either normocaloric or hypocaloric feeding (respectively 100% vs 60% of estimated requirements). The primary end point was septic complication and the secondary end points included the metabolic, physiological and clinical outcomes to the 2 feeding protocols. Only 26% (12 out of 46) of included participants were ICU participants and the results did not distinguish between ICU and non‐ICU participants.
Rodríguez 2005	Hypocaloric nutrition support was not evaluated. They assess clinical results with 2 different calories/protein relationships.
Schricker 2005	Not critically‐ill participants . Surgical participants (hemicolectomy, sigmoid colectomy) to assess if hypocaloric nutrition could induce anabolism in participants with perioperative epidural analgesia.
Wewalka 2010	Hypocaloric nutrition support was not evaluated. The aim of the study was the evaluation of 2 nutrition support programmes: isocalorically right from the beginning compared with a hypocaloric beginning (50% of the dose in the first day, 75% the second day and 100% from the third day): abstract with no results of the clinical outcomes.

Abbreviations:

kcal = kilocalories; kg = kilograms