ArticleInflammation2021
Combination of Enteral Nutrition and Probiotics Promote Recovery Following Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis in Rats.
Article in Inflammation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Many patients with ulcerative colitis suffer from malnutrition and intestinal flora disorders, which affect the postoperative intestinal barrier function of the ileal pouch. This study aimed to investigate the effects of enteral nutrition combined with probiotics after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in rats. Male Sprague-Dawley rats underent ileal pouch-anal anastomosis and were randomly assigned to a control group (standard rat chow), enteral nutrition group (short-peptide enteral nutrition), or probiotic nutrition group (short-peptide enteral nutrition and Lactobacillus acidophilus). The primary outcomes were a histological score and occludin levels in the ileal pouch. The secondary outcomes were nutritional status and fecal flora distribution. The histological scores in the control group were significantly higher than in the enteral nutrition and probiotic nutrition groups (P < 0.05), while occludin levels were significantly lower in the controls compared with the other two groups (P < 0.05). Serum total protein, albumin, transthyretin, and transferrin levels were significantly higher in the probiotic nutrition group, followed by the enteral nutrition and control groups (all P < 0.05). Total fecal flora, and Gram-positive and Gram-negative rods differed significantly among the groups (all P < 0.05), but there were no significant differences in Gram-positive or Gram-negative cocci (all P > 0.05). Enteral nutrition combined with probiotics can effectively protect the intestinal barrier function of the ileal pouch in rats, possibly via the stable distribution of the intestinal flora and good nutritional status.
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.