Trial reportBMC gastroenterology2020
Non-inferiority comparative clinical trial between early oral REFEEDING and usual oral REFEEDING in predicted mild acute biliary pancreatitis.
Trial report in BMC gastroenterology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04168801 (Non-inferiority Comparative Clinical Trial Between Early Oral Refeeding Versus Usual Oral Refeeding in Mild Acute Pancreatitis Patients), which is not on this 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.
Non-inferiority Comparative Clinical Trial Between Early Oral Refeeding Versus Usual Oral Refeeding in Mild Acute Pancreatitis Patients
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- AEG-AESPANC-OPGE-SIED-SPG Ibero-Latin American Guidelines on Acute Pancreatitis (iLATAM-AP).United European gastroenterology journal · 2026Guideline
- Comparison of Immediate Oral Feeding vs Conventional Oral Feeding in Patients with Mild to Moderately Severe Acute Pancreatitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial from a Tertiary Care Center in North India.Euroasian journal of hepato-gastroenterologyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the study was to compare the onset of oral feeding in the first 24 h after hospital admission with usual oral refeeding and determine whether the timing of the onset of oral feeding influences the recurrence of pain or alters the blood levels of pancreatic enzymes in patients with predicted mild acute biliary pancreatitis.
methodsThis non-inferiority randomized controlled trial was carried out between September 2018 and June 2019 after receiving authorization from the ethics committee for health research. Patients with a diagnosis of predicted mild acute biliary pancreatitis were divided into Group A (early oral refeeding, EOR) and Group B (usual oral refeeding, UOR). Outcome measures included pancreatic lipase levels, the systemic inflammatory response (concentrations of leukocytes), feasibility (evaluated by abdominal pain recurrence), the presence and recurrence of gastrointestinal symptoms and the length of hospital stay.
resultsTwo patients in the EOR group experienced pain relapse (3.2%), and four patients in the UOR group experienced pain relapse (6.77%) after oral refeeding (p = 0.379). The presence of nausea or vomiting after the onset of oral refeeding was not different between the two groups (p = 0.293). The onset of oral refeeding was approximately 48 h later in the UOR group. The length of hospital stay was 5 days in the EOR group and 8 days in the UOR group (p = 0.042), and this difference was also manifested in higher hospital costs in the UOR group (p = 0.0235).
conclusionCompared with usual oral refeeding, early oral refeeding is safe in predicted mild acute biliary pancreatitis patients, does not cause adverse gastrointestinal events, and reduces the length of hospital stay and costs.
trial registrationEarly oral refeeding in mild acute pancreatitis (EORVsUOR). NCT04168801 , retrospectively registered (November 19, 2019).
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.