“…Ensuring the existing practices related to GRVs are evidence-based is crucial in improving patient outcomes. Inconsistencies in recommendations are evident between acceptable GRVs, both in the literature (Cerra et al, 1997;Pinilla et al, 2001;McClave and Snider, 2002;Parrish and McCray, 2003b;Keithley and Swanson, 2004;Bowman et al, 2005;Marshall, 2005;Zaloga, 2005;Kattelmann et al, 2006;Bourgault et al, 2007;Metheny, 2008;Parrish and McClave, 2008;Montejo et al, 2010;Soroksky et al, 2010;Kuppinger et al, 2013;Reignier et al, 2013;Williams et al, 2013), and in recommendations of clinical practice guidelines (Cerra et al, 1997;Jolliet et al, GRV is a poor marker for risk of aspiration. Pinilla et al (2001) Randomized controlled trial Comparison of two groups: Group 1: GRV 150 mL with an optional prokinetic.…”