Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23807124›Full record

Trial reportWorld journal of surgery2013

Early oral feeding versus traditional postoperative care after abdominal emergency surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

Roberto F Klappenbach, Federico J Yazyi, Facundo Alonso Quintas, Matías E Horna, Juan Alvarez Rodríguez, Alejandro Oría

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in World journal of surgery, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.1field-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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Nutrition delivery after emergency laparotomy in surgical ward: a retrospective cohort study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Roberto F KlappenbachGeneral Surgical Division, Department of Surgery, Cosme Argerich Hospital, Pi y Margall 750, C1155AHD, Buenos Aires, Argentina. rklappenbach@yahoo.com.ar
Federico J Yazyi
Facundo Alonso Quintas
Matías E Horna
Juan Alvarez Rodríguez
Alejandro Oría
Argerich Hospital · AR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly oral feeding (EOF) has been demonstrated to be safe and beneficial after abdominal elective surgery. The aim of this randomized controlled trial is to assess the safety and benefits of EOF compared to traditional postoperative care (TPC) after abdominal emergency surgery.

methodsPatients assigned to the EOF group commenced a soft diet within 24 h after surgery. In the TPC group, a liquid diet was commenced upon passage of flatus or stool and then advanced to soft food. The primary endpoint was the complication rate. Secondary endpoints were severity of complications, mortality, gastrointestinal leaks, surgical-site infection, reoperation, diet intolerance, time to first flatus and stool, amount of food intake, postoperative discomfort, hospital stay, weight loss at the 15th postoperative day and incisional hernias.

resultsA total of 295 patients assigned to EOF (n = 148) or TPC (n = 147) were analyzed. No significant differences were seen in the complications rates (EOF 45.3 % vs. TPC 37.4 %; p = 0.1). There was a significantly higher rate of vomiting with EOF (EOF 13.5 % vs. TPC 6.1 %; p = 0.03), with no differences in nasogastric tube reinsertion. EOF patients' food intake was proportionally lower for the first three meals than that of TPC patients (p < 0.01). Postoperative discomfort survey revealed more hunger in the TPC group (p < 0.01). There were no differences in postoperative ileus or length of hospital stay.

conclusionsEOF was safe after abdominal emergency surgery. EOF was associated with more vomiting (treated easily and without patient discomfort) and less hunger than with TPC. No other EOF-related benefits could be demonstrated during this trial.

Indexed as

AbdomenAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overEmergenciesEnteral NutritionFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative CarePostoperative ComplicationsRecovery of Function

Identifiers

PMID23807124
OpenAlexW2012539546

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.