Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12535441›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2003

Enteral versus parenteral nutrition for acute pancreatitis.

M Al-Omran, A Groof, D Wilke

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. A comparison of the hospital costs of open vs. minimally invasive surgical management of necrotizing pancreatitis.HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association · 2011
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Gastroenterology - Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition, Chapter 15.German medical science : GMS e-journal · 2009
    Review
  8. [Acute pancreatitis].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2009
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Current management of acute pancreatitis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2005
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. [Acute pancreatitis].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2004
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

M Al-OmranGeneral Surgery, University of Toronto, 3403-38 Elm Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5G 2K5. m_alomran@hotmail.com
A Groof
D Wilke

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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 and updated in September 2002. 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

Enteral NutritionParenteral NutritionAcute DiseaseHumansPancreatitisRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.