Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27496239›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2016

Nutritional route in oesophageal resection trial II (NUTRIENT II): study protocol for a multicentre open-label randomised controlled trial.

Gijs H K Berkelmans, Bas J W Wilts, Ewout A Kouwenhoven, Koshi Kumagai, Magnus Nilsson, Teus J Weijs, Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen, Marc J van Det, Misha D P Luyer

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02378948 (Nutritional Route in Esophageal Resection Trial II), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT02378948 nacompletednot on this map

Nutritional Route in Esophageal Resection Trial II (NUTRIENT II): a Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorCatharina Ziekenhuis EindhovenRan2015 to 2018Enrolled148ConditionsEsophageal NeoplasmsArmsLiquid oral feeding
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

9 authors.

Gijs H K BerkelmansDepartment of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Bas J W WiltsDepartment of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Ewout A KouwenhovenDepartment of Surgery, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo, Twente, The Netherlands.
Koshi KumagaiDivision of Surgery, CLINTEC, Karolinska Institutet and Center for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan.
Magnus NilssonDivision of Surgery, CLINTEC, Karolinska Institutet and Center for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Teus J WeijsDepartment of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Grard A P NieuwenhuijzenDepartment of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Marc J van DetDepartment of Surgery, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo, Twente, The Netherlands.
Misha D P LuyerDepartment of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEarly start of an oral diet is safe and beneficial in most types of gastrointestinal surgery and is a crucial part of fast track or enhanced recovery protocols. However, the feasibility and safety of oral intake directly following oesophagectomy remain unclear. The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of early versus delayed start of oral intake on postoperative recovery following oesophagectomy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an open-label multicentre randomised controlled trial. Patients undergoing elective minimally invasive or hybrid oesophagectomy for cancer are eligible. Further inclusion criteria are intrathoracic anastomosis, written informed consent and age 18 years or older. Inability for oral intake, inability to place a feeding jejunostomy, inability to provide written consent, swallowing disorder, achalasia, Karnofsky Performance Status <80 and malnutrition are exclusion criteria. Patients will be randomised using online randomisation software. The intervention group (direct oral feeding) will receive a liquid oral diet for 2 weeks with gradually expanding daily maximums. The control group (delayed oral feeding) will receive enteral feeding via a jejunostomy during 5 days and then start the same liquid oral diet. The primary outcome measure is functional recovery. Secondary outcome measures are 30-day surgical complications; nutritional status; need for artificial nutrition; need for additional interventions; health-related quality of life. We aim to recruit 148 patients. Statistical analysis will be performed according to an intention to treat principle. Results are presented as risk ratios with corresponding 95% CIs. A two-tailed p<0.05 is considered statistically significant. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our study protocol has received ethical approval from the Medical research Ethics Committees United (MEC-U). This study is conducted according to the principles of Good Clinical Practice. Verbal and written informed consent is required before randomisation. All data will be collected using an online database with adequate security measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT02378948 and Dutch trial registry: NTR4972; Pre-results.

Indexed as

EatingAdolescentAdultAgedDietary SupplementsEnteral NutritionEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsNutritional StatusPostoperative Complications

Identifiers

PMID27496239
PMCPMC4985839

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.