Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22895962›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Nutritional interventions for liver-transplanted patients.

Gero Langer, Katja Großmann, Steffen Fleischer, Almuth Berg, Dirk Grothues, Andreas Wienke, Johann Behrens, Astrid Fink

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Nutritional support for liver disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. A Novel UPLC-MS/MS Method Identifies Organ-Specific Dipeptide Profiles.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gero LangerInstitute for Health and Nursing Science, German Center for Evidence-based Nursing, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg,Halle/Saale, Germany.
Katja Großmann
Steffen Fleischer
Almuth Berg
Dirk Grothues
Andreas Wienke
Johann Behrens
Astrid Fink
Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg · DEKlinik und Poliklinik für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMalnutrition is a common problem for patients waiting for orthotopic liver transplantation and a risk factor for post-transplant morbidity. The decision to initiate enteral or parenteral nutrition, to which patients and at which time, is still debated. The effects of nutritional supplements given before or after liver transplantation, or both, still remains unclear.

objectivesThe aim of this review was to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of enteral and parenteral nutrition as well as oral nutritional supplements administered to patients before and after liver transplantation. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (March 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2 of 12, 2012) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (January 1946 to March 2012), EMBASE (January 1974 to March 2012), Science Citation Index Expanded (January 1900 to March 2012), Social Science Citation Index (January 1961 to October 2010), and reference lists of articles. Manufacturers and experts in the field have also been contacted and relevant journals and conference proceedings were handsearched (from 1997 to October 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials of parallel or cross-over design evaluating the beneficial or harmful effects of enteral or parenteral nutrition or oral nutritional supplements for patients before and after liver transplantation were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias of the trials and extracted data. Dichotomous data were reported as odds ratios (OR) and continuous data as mean differences (MD) along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Meta-analysis was not possible due to clinical heterogeneity of included interventions. MAIN

resultsThirteen trials met the inclusion criteria. Four publications did not report outcomes pre-defined in the review protocol, or other clinically relevant outcomes and additional data could not be obtained. Nine trials could provide data for the review. Most of the 13 included trials were small and at high risk of bias. Meta-analyses were not possible due to clinical heterogeneity of the interventions.No interventions that were likely to be beneficial were identified.For interventions of unknown effectiveness,postoperative enteral nutrition compared with postoperative parenteral nutrition seemed to have no beneficial or harmful effects on clinical outcomes. Parenteral nutrition containing protein, fat, carbohydrates, and branched-chain amino acids with or without alanyl-glutamine seemed to have no beneficial effect on the outcomes of one and three years survival when compared with a solution of 5% dextrose and normal saline. Enteral immunonutrition with Supportan® seemed to have no effect on occurrence of immunological rejection when compared with enteral nutrition with Fresubin®.There is weak evidence that, compared with standard dietary advice, adding a nutritional supplement to usual diet for patients during the waiting time for liver transplantation had an effect on clinical outcomes after liver transplantation. The combination of enteral nutrition plus parenteral nutrition plus glutamine-dipeptide seemed to be beneficial in reducing length of hospital stay after liver transplantation compared with standard parenteral nutrition (mean difference (MD) -12.20 days; 95% CI -20.20 to -4.00). There is weak evidence that the use of parenteral nutrition plus branched-chain amino acids had an effect on clinical outcomes compared with standard parenteral nutrition, but each was beneficial in reducing length of stay in intensive care unit compared to a standard glucose solution (MD -2.40; 95% CI -4.29 to -0.51 and MD -2.20 days; 95% CI -3.79 to -0.61). There is weak evidence that adding omega-3 fish oil to parenteral nutrition reduced the length of hospital stay after liver transplantation (mean difference -7.1 days; 95% CI -13.02 to -1.18) and the length of stay in intensive care unit after liver transplantation (MD -1.9 days; 95% CI -1.9 to -0.22).For interventions unlikely to be beneficial, there is a significant increased risk in acute rejections in malnourished patients with a history of encephalopathy and treated with the nutritional supplement Ensure® compared with usual diet only (MD 0.70 events per patient; 95% CI 0.08 to 1.32). AUTHORS'

conclusionsWe were unable to identify nutritional interventions for liver transplanted patients that seemed to offer convincing benefits. Further randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias and powerful sample sizes are needed.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsEnteral NutritionLiver TransplantationParenteral NutritionHumansMalnutritionPostoperative CarePreoperative Care

Identifiers

PMID22895962
PMCPMC11787929
OpenAlexW1906121997

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.