Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25397686›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2014

Is early oral feeding after gastric cancer surgery feasible? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Xiaoping Liu, Da Wang, Liansheng Zheng, Tingyu Mou, Hao Liu, Guoxin Li

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Early versus the traditional start of oral intake following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  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.

Xiaoping LiuDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P.R. China; Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The first affiliated hospital of Gannan medical university, Gannan medical university, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, P.R. China.
Da WangDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P.R. China.
Liansheng ZhengDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P.R. China.
Tingyu MouDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P.R. China.
Hao LiuDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P.R. China.
Guoxin LiDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P.R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo assess the feasibility and safety of early oral feeding (EOF) after gastrectomy for gastric cancer through a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.

methodsA literature search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane library databases was performed for eligible studies published between January 1995 and March 2014. Systematic review was carried out to identify randomized controlled trials comparing EOF and traditional postoperative oral feeding after gastric cancer surgery. Meta-analyses were performed by either a fixed effects model or a random effects model according to the heterogeneity using RevMan 5.2 software.

resultsSix studies remained for final analysis. Included studies were published between 2005 and 2013 reporting on a total of 454 patients. No significant differences were observed for postoperative complication (RR = 0.95; 95%CI, 0.70 to 1.29; P = 0.75), the tolerability of oral feeding (RR = 0.98; 95%CI, 0.91 to 1.06; P = 0.61), readmission rate (RR = 1; 95%CI, 0.30 to 3.31; P = 1.00) and incidence of anastomotic leakage (RR = 0.31; 95%CI, 0.01 to 7.30; P = 0.47) between two groups. EOF after gastrectomy for gastric cancer was associated with significant shorter duration of the hospital stay (WMD = -2.36; 95%CI, -3.37 to -1.34; P<0.0001) and time to first flatus (WMD = -19.94; 95%CI, -32.03 to -7.84; P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in postoperative complication, tolerability of oral feeding, readmission rates, duration of hospital stay and time to first flatus among subgroups stratified by the time to start EOF or by partial and total gastrectomy or by laparoscopic and open surgery.

conclusionsThe result of this meta-analysis showed that EOF after gastric cancer surgery seems feasible and safe, even started at the day of surgery irrespective of the extent of the gastric resection and the type of surgery. However, more prospective, well-designed multicenter RCTs with more clinical outcomes are needed for further validation.

Indexed as

Digestive System Surgical ProceduresFeeding MethodsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdministration, OralFeasibility StudiesHumansLaparoscopyPublication BiasStomach NeoplasmsTime FactorsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID25397686
PMCPMC4232373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.