ArticleOncoTargets and therapy2015
Early enteral and parenteral nutritional support after hepatectomy in patients with hepatic carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in OncoTargets and therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The E-AHPBA-ESSO-Innsbruck consensus recommendations on peri- and postoperative management following liver resection.The British journal of surgery · 2025Guideline
- Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Liver Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations 2022.World journal of surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Effect of enteral ecoimmunonutrition support for patients undergoing hepatectomy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2022Pooled it
- Nutrition in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Pathophysiological Insights, Impact, and Implications for Clinical Practice.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study sought to conduct a systematic review providing a comparative analysis of enteral nutrition (EN) and parenteral nutrition (PN) after hepatectomy.
methodsPubMed, Embase, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched for publications describing randomized controlled trials that compared early EN and PN after hepatectomy. The time period for this search was from January 1990 to December 2013. In accordance with the inclusion criteria of this study, two researchers independently screened the retrieved literature, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality. A meta-analysis of the included publications was then performed using RevMan 5.2 software.
resultsThe meta-analysis results indicated statistically significant differences between the group that received EN and the group that received PN during the early stages after hepatectomy with respect to average total bilirubin and alanine aminotransferase levels after nutrition, pre-albumin levels, incidence of diarrhea and abdominal bloating, time to flatus, and average cost of nutrition. To varying degrees, better results were observed in the EN group than in the PN group for these metrics.
conclusionDuring the early stages after hepatectomy, EN has obvious advantages relative to PN; thus, EN merits more widespread promotion and application in this clinical context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.