Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20091534›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2010

Enteral versus parenteral nutrition for acute pancreatitis.

Mohammed Al-Omran, Zaina H Albalawi, Mariam F Tashkandi, Lubna A Al-Ansary

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 99 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
99citing papers in PubMed, 15 pooled it
21.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

99 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 416 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Nasogastric versus nasojejunal tube feeding for severe acute pancreatitis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Guideline
  9. Pooled it
  10. Guideline
  11. Enteral nutrition formulations for acute pancreatitis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Trial
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

39 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Mohammed Al-OmranDepartment of Surgery and Peripheral Vascular Disease Research Chair, College of Medicine, King Saud University, P.O.Box 7805(37), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 11472.
Zaina H Albalawi
Mariam F Tashkandi
Lubna A Al-Ansary
King Saud University · SASt. Michael's Hospital · CA

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 in recovery. Total parenteral nutrition (TPN) has been standard practice for providing exogenous nutrients to patients with severe acute pancreatitis. However, recent data suggest that enteral nutrition (EN) is not only feasible, but safer and more effective.Therefore, we sought to update our systematic review to re-evaluate the level of evidence.

objectivesTo compare the effect of TPN versus EN on mortality, morbidity and length of hospital stay in patients with acute pancreatitis. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were identified by computerized searches of The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Additional studies were identified by searching Scisearch, bibliographies of review articles and identified trials. The search was undertaken in August 2000 and updated in September 2002, October 2003, November 2004 and November 2008. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized clinical trials comparing TPN to EN in patients with acute pancreatitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed trial quality. A standardized form was used to extract relevant data. MAIN

resultsEight trials with a total of 348 participants were included. Comparing EN to TPN for acute pancreatitis, the relative risk (RR) for death was 0.50 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.91), for multiple organ failure (MOF) was 0.55 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.81), for systemic infection was 0.39 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.65), for operative interventions was 0.44 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.67), for local septic complications was 0.74 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.35), and for other local complications was 0.70 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.13). Mean length of hospital stay was reduced by 2.37 days in EN vs TPN groups (95% CI -7.18 to 2.44). Furthermore, a subgroup analysis for EN vs TPN in patients with severe acute pancreatitis showed a RR for death of 0.18 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.58) and a RR for MOF of 0.46 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.29). AUTHORS'

conclusionsIn patients with acute pancreatitis, enteral nutrition significantly reduced mortality, multiple organ failure, systemic infections, and the need for operative interventions compared to those who received TPN. In addition, there was a trend towards a reduction in length of hospital stay. These data suggest that EN should be considered the standard of care for patients with acute pancreatitis requiring nutritional support.

Indexed as

Enteral NutritionParenteral NutritionAcute DiseaseHumansPancreatitisRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID20091534
PMCPMC7120370
OpenAlexW1896125460

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.