Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35147865›Full record

ReviewCurrent gastroenterology reports2022

When Can we Feed after a Gastrointestinal Bleed?

Rebecca A Busch, Bryan R Collier, Matthew B Kaspar

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current gastroenterology reports, 2022. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

3 authors.

Rebecca A BuschDepartment of Surgery, Division of Acute Care and Regional General Surgery, University of Wisconsin- Madison, Madison, WI, USA. busch@surgery.wisc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3462-9515
Bryan R CollierDepartment of Surgery, Section of Acute Care Surgery, Virginia Technical Institute Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, VA, USA.
Matthew B KasparDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, VA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewGastrointestinal (GI) bleeding can carry minimal or significant risk for recurrent hemorrhage. Timing of feeding after GI bleeding remains an area of debate, and here we review the evidence supporting recommendations. RECENT

findingsImproved understanding of the pathophysiology of GI bleeding and the evolution of treatment strategies has significantly altered the management of GI bleeding and the associated propensity for rebleeding. Early feeding following peptic ulcer bleeding remains ill-advised for high risk lesions while early initiation of liquid diets following cessation of esophageal variceal bleeding is appropriate and shortens hospital stays. Time to feeding following GI bleeding is inherently based on the disease etiology, severity, and risk of recurrent hemorrhage. With evolving standards of care, rates of rebleeding following endoscopic hemostasis are decreasing. Some evidence exists for early feeding however, larger multi-center trials are needed to help optimize timing of feeding in higher risk lesions.

Indexed as

Esophageal and Gastric VaricesHemostasis, EndoscopicGastrointestinal HemorrhageHumansPeptic Ulcer HemorrhageRecurrenceEsophageal variceal bleedingFeedingGastrointestinal bleedingNutritionPeptic ulcer disease

Identifiers

PMID35147865

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.