SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2001
Enteral versus parenteral nutrition for acute pancreatitis.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 100 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors predisposing to severe acute pancreatitis: evaluation and prevention.World journal of gastroenterology · 2003Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute pancreatitis creates a catabolic stress state promoting a systemic inflammatory response and nutritional deterioration. Adequate supply of nutrients plays an important role to ensure optimum recovery. Total parenteral nutrition (TPN) has been the standard practice for providing exogenous nutrients to patients with severe acute pancreatitis. However, recent data suggest that enteral nutrition (EN) is feasible. Thus, a comparison of EN and TPN in patients with acute pancreatitis needs to be made.
objectivesTo compare the effect of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) versus enteral nutrition (EN) on mortality, morbidity and length of hospital stay in patient with acute pancreatitis. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were identified by computerized searches of The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Additional studies were identified and included where relevant by searching Scisearch, the bibliographies of review articles and identified trials, and personal files. The search was undertaken in August, 2000. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized clinical trials, in which nutrition support with TPN were compared to EN in patients with acute pancreatitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed trial quality. Information was collected on death, length of hospital stay, systemic infection, local septic complications, and other local complications. MAIN
resultsTwo trials with a total of 70 participants were included. The relative risk (RR) for death with EN vs TPN was 0.56 (95% CI 0.05 to 5.62). Mean length of hospital stay was reduced with EN (WMD -2.20, 95% CI -3.62 to -0.78). RR for systemic infection with EN vs TPN was 0.61 (95% CI 0.29 to 1.28). In one trial, RR for local septic complications and other local complications with EN vs TPN was 0.56 (95% CI 0.12 to 2.68) and 0.16 (95% CI 0.01 to 2.86) respectively. REVIEWER'S
conclusionsAlthough there is a trend towards reductions in the adverse outcomes of acute pancreatitis after administration of EN, clearly there are insufficient data to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of EN versus TPN. Further trials are required with sufficient size to account for clinical heterogeneity and to measure all relevant outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.