Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17939012›Full record

SynthesisJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2008

Enteral versus parenteral nutrition after gastrointestinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in the English literature.

Takero Mazaki, Kiyoko Ebisawa

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 214 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Diet and inflammatory bowel disease: The Asian Working Group guidelines.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2019
    Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Takero MazakiDepartment of Surgery, Nihon University School of Medicine, Nihon University Nerima-Hikarigaoka Hospital, 2-11-1 Hikarigaoka, Nerima-ku, Tokyo 179-0072, Japan. tmazaki@med.nihon-u.ac.jp
Kiyoko Ebisawa
Nihon University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough previous studies recommend the use of enteral nutrition (EN), the benefit of EN after elective gastrointestinal surgery has not been comprehensively demonstrated as through a meta-analysis. Our aim is to determine whether enteral nutrition is more beneficial than parenteral nutrition.

methodsA search was conducted on Medline, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library electronic databases, and bibliographic reviews. The trials were based on randomization, gastrointestinal surgery, and the reporting of at least one of the following end points: any complication, any infectious complication, mortality, wound infection and dehiscence, anastomotic leak, intraabdominal abscess, pneumonia, respiratory failure, urinary tract infection, renal failure, any adverse effect, and duration of hospital stay.

resultsTwenty-nine trials, which included 2,552 patients, met the criteria. EN was beneficial in the reduction of any complication (relative risk (RR), 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.74-0.99; P = 0.04), any infectious complication (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86; P = 0.001), anastomotic leak (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-0.95; P = 0.03), intraabdominal abscess (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.95; P = 0.03), and duration of hospital stay (weighted mean difference, -0.81; 95% CI, -1.25-0.38; P = 0.02). There were no clear benefits in any of the other complications.

conclusionThe present findings would lead us to recommend the use of EN rather than PN when possible and indicated.

Indexed as

Enteral NutritionParenteral NutritionElective Surgical ProceduresGastrointestinal TractHumansPostoperative CarePostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID17939012
OpenAlexW2020907841

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.