SynthesisPloS one2019
Infection rate among nutritional therapies for acute pancreatitis: A systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- AEG-AESPANC-OPGE-SIED-SPG Ibero-Latin American Guidelines on Acute Pancreatitis (iLATAM-AP).United European gastroenterology journal · 2026Guideline
- Gut or Vein? Enteral Nutrition Versus Total Parenteral Nutrition in Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Management of Severe Acute Pancreatitis: An Update.Digestion · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInfection in acute pancreatitis (AP) is associated with nutritional therapies including naso-gastric (NG), naso-jejunal (NJ), and total parenteral nutrition (TPN). To examine infections among NG, NJ, TPN, and no nutritional support (NNS) in treating patients with AP.
methodsThe investigators completed comprehensive search in the Cochrane library, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov without restriction on language and publication date before January 21, 2019. They also searched the reference lists of relevant studies for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NG, NJ, TPN, and NNS among patients with AP. Quantitative synthesis was conducted in a contrast-based network meta-analysis. To clarify effects, a network meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Beside of overall infections, the event rates of infected pancreatic necrosis, bacteremia, line infection, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and other types of infections were measured.
resultsThe network meta-analysis of 16 RCTs showed that NJ had significantly lower overall infection rates compared with TPN (risk ratio: 0.59; 95% confidence interval: 0.38, 0.90); and NG had a larger effect size and higher rank probability compared with NJ, TPN, and NNS (mean rank = 1.7; SUCRA = 75.8). TPN was the least preferred (mean rank = 3.2; SUCRA = 26.6).
conclusionsNG and NJ may be preferred therapies for treating patients with AP. Clinicians may consider NG as a first-line treatment for patients with AP (including severe AP) and even in patients receiving prophylactic antibiotics. In addition, we found that NNS should be avoided when treating patients with severe AP.
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.