Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28549015›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of surgery2018

Early Oral Feeding Following McKeown Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: An Open-label, Randomized, Controlled, Noninferiority Trial.

Hai-Bo Sun, Yin Li, Xian-Ben Liu, Rui-Xiang Zhang, Zong-Fei Wang, Toni Lerut, Chia-Chuan Liu, Alfonso Fiorelli, Yin-Kai Chao, Daniela Molena and 4 more

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
11.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 138 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. 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
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Challenging esophageal surgery: risk factors, outcomes, and a comparative single-center analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.

Hai-Bo SunDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, P. R. China.
Yin LiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, P. R. China.
Xian-Ben LiuDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, P. R. China.
Rui-Xiang ZhangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, P. R. China.
Zong-Fei WangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, P. R. China.
Toni LerutDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Leuven University, Leuven, Belgium.
Chia-Chuan LiuDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Sun Yat-sen Cancer Center, Taipei, Taiwan.
Alfonso FiorelliThoracic Surgery Unit, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Yin-Kai ChaoDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital-Linko, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Daniela MolenaDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Robert J CerfolioDivision of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
Soji OzawaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Kanagawa, Japan.
Andrew C ChangDepartment of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
written on behalf of the AME Thoracic Surgery Collaborative Group
Zhengzhou University · CNKoo Foundation Sun Yat-Sen Cancer Center · TWKU Leuven · BEHenan Cancer Hospital · CNLinkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital · TWMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USUniversity of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" · IT

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveOur objective was to evaluate the impact of early oral feeding (EOF) on postoperative cardiac, respiratory, and gastrointestinal (CRG) complications after McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Nil-by-mouth with enteral tube feeding is routinely practiced after esophagectomy.

methodsPatients were randomly allocated to receive oral feeding on the first postoperative day (EOF group) or late oral feeding (LOF group) 7 days after surgery. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of postoperative CRG complications, and the secondary outcomes included bowel function recovery and short-term quality of life (QOL).

resultsBetween February 2014 and October 2015, 280 patients were enrolled in this study. There were 140 patients in the EOF group and 140 patients in the LOF group. EOF was noninferior to LOF for CRG complications (30.0% in the EOF group vs. 32.9% in the LOF group; 95% confidence interval of the difference: -13.8% to 8.0%). Compared with the LOF group, the EOF group showed significantly shorter time to first flatus (median of 2 days vs. 3 days, P = 0.001) and bowel movement (median of 3 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001). Two weeks after the operation, patients in the EOF group reported higher global QOL and function scores and lower symptom scores than patients in the LOF group.

conclusionsIn patients after McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy is noninferior to the standard of care with regard to postoperative CRG complications. In addition, patients in the EOF group had a quicker recovery of bowel function and improved short-term QOL.

Indexed as

EsophagectomyAgedEnteral NutritionEsophageal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansLymph Node ExcisionMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesQuality of LifeRecovery of FunctionTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID28549015
PMCPMC5937132
OpenAlexW2617525176

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.