Observational studyMedicine2019
Early oral feeding versus traditional feeding after transanal endorectal pull-through procedure in Hirschsprung's disease.
Observational study in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early enteral feeding after intestinal anastomosis in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Pediatric surgery international · 2021Pooled it
- Early Enteral Nutrition After Paediatric Ostomy Closure (EPOC): A Protocol for a Multicentre, Prospective Randomised Controlled Trial.Journal of paediatrics and child health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our study questioned whether the outcome of postoperative early oral feeding is different from traditional postoperative feeding in children with Hirschsprung's disease who underwent transanal endorectal pull-through.This was an observational and comparative study. Patients were allocated into 2 groups. Age, gender, fever, surgery-related infectious, abdominal distension, bowel obstruction, need for reoperation, peritonitis, anastomosis leak, and abscess formation were assessed. IV fluids and antibiotics usage were recorded. A Chi-square test, independent sample unpaired Student t test and Mann-Whitney test were used. P-value < .05 was considered statistically significant.Infections occurred in no patient in group 1 and 1 patient in group 2. Stenosis occurred in 3 patients in group 1 and 2 patients in group 2. Abdominal distension occurred in 4 patients in group 1 and 3 patients in group 2. Fever occurred in 2 patients in group 1 and 1 patient in group 2 within the first 24 hours and it occurred in 13 and 17 patients, respectively, within 48 hours. All patients of group 1 (n = 15) were treated with antibiotics and intravenous fluid administration; 1 patient for 24 hours, 12 patients for 48 hours, and 1 for 72 hours, respectively. All patients of group 2 (n = 18) were treated with antibiotics and intravenous fluid administration for 5 days. We noted a significant difference regarding the duration of antibiotic treatment and intravenous fluid administration after 72 hours.This study showed that there was no difference between the outcomes of early and traditional postoperative feeding. Due to a significant difference in the antibiotics and IV fluid administration intervals between these 2 groups which cause a prolonged hospital stay and higher costs, it seems that early postoperative feeding is superior to traditional strategy.
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.