Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31269969›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2019

Short-term evaluation of immune levels and nutritional values of EN versus PN in gastric cancer: a systematic review and a meta-analysis.

Fan Xin, Said Abdulrahman Salim Mzee, Godwin Botwe, Han He, Sun Zhiyu, Chen Gong, Said Twahir Said, Chen Jixing

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of surgical oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Fan XinAffiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China.
Said Abdulrahman Salim MzeeJiangsu University, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China. said_salim@live.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8086-202X
Godwin BotweJiangsu University, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China.
Han HeJiangsu University, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China.
Sun ZhiyuJiangsu University, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China.
Chen GongJiangsu University, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China.
Said Twahir SaidMsambweni County Referral Hospital, Kwale County, Kenya.
Chen JixingAffiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China.
Jiangsu University · CN

Funding

Jiangsu Provincial Medical Youth Talent QNRCQ2016839The Foundation for Young Scientists of affiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University JDFYRC2016002Zhenjiang Science and Technology Pillar Program SH2018082
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPostsurgical patients' oral feeding begins with clear fluids 1-3 days after surgery. This might not be sufficiently nutritious to boost the host immune system and provide sufficient energy in gastric neoplastic patients to achieve the goal of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). Our objective was to analyze the significance of early postoperative feeding tubes in boosting patients' immunity and decreasing incidence of overall complications and hospital stay in gastric cancer patients' post-gastrectomy.

methodsFrom January 2005 to May 24, 2019, PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched for studies involving enteral nutrition (EN) feeding tubes in comparison to parenteral nutrition (PN) in gastric cancer patients undergoing gastrectomy for gastric malignancies. Relative risk (RR), mean difference (MD), or standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to estimate the effect sizes, and heterogeneity was assessed by using Q and χ

resultsNine randomized trials (n = 1437) and 5 retrospective studies (n = 421) comparing EN feeding tubes and PN were deemed eligible for the pooled analyses, with a categorized time frame of PODs ≥ 7 and PODs < 7. Ratio of CD4+/CD8+ in EN feeding tubes was the only outcome of PODs < 7, which showed significance (MD 0.22, 95% CI 0.18-0.25, P < 0.00001). Regarding other immune indicators, significant outcomes in favor of EN feeding tubes were measured on POD ≥ 7: CD3+ (SMD 1.71; 95% CI 0.70, 2.72; P = 0.0009), CD4+ (MD 5.84; 95% CI 4.19, 7.50; P < 0.00001), CD4+/CD8+ (MD 0.28; 95% CI 0.20; 0.36, P < 0.00001), NK cells (SMD 0.94; 95% CI 0.54, 1.30; P < 0.00001), nutrition values, albumin (SMD 0.63; 95% CI 0.34, 0.91; P < 0.001), prealbumin (SMD 1.00; 95% CI 0.52, 1.48; P < 0.00001), and overall complications (risk ratio 0.73 M-H; fixed; 95% CI 0.58, 0.92; P = 0.006).

conclusionEN feeding tube support is an essential intervention to elevate patients' immunity, depress levels of inflammation, and reduce the risk of complications after gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Enteral nutrition improves the innate immune system and nutrition levels but has no marked significance on certain clinical outcomes. Also, EN reduces the duration of hospital stay and cost, significantly.

Indexed as

Enteral NutritionParenteral NutritionGastrectomyHumansImmunity, InnateLength of StayNutritional StatusNutritive ValuePostoperative CarePostoperative ComplicationsPrognosisRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStomach NeoplasmsTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeEN feeding tubesERASGastrectomyGastric cancerPN

Identifiers

PMID31269969
PMCPMC6609406
OpenAlexW2955517976

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.