SynthesisInteractive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2022
In patients undergoing oesophagectomy does postoperative home enteral nutrition have any impact on nutritional status?
Synthesis in Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nutritional support via feeding jejunostomy in esophago-gastric cancers: proposal of a common working strategy based on the available evidence.Updates in surgery · 2025Review
- Focusing on the process: experiences and needs of Chinese post-esophagectomy patients and caregivers regarding home enteral nutrition.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
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
Abstract
A best evidence topic in thoracic surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was 'In patients undergoing oesophagectomy does postoperative home enteral nutrition have any impact on nutritional status?' Altogether, 50 articles were found using the reported search, of which 5 studies represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. This consisted of 1 systematic review including a meta-analysis of 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 3 RCTs and 1 cohort study. Main outcomes included loss of body weight and body mass index (BMI), change of serum albumin, haemoglobin, total protein and prealbumin, rates of nutritional risk patients and score value of patient-generated subjective global assessment. The meta-analysis concluded that there were significant differences in the loss of body weight and BMI between 2 groups, with higher values observed in the HEN group than that in the control group. One RCT showed that patients receiving HEN had a significantly lower weight loss compared with the control group. However, in another RCT, there was no significant difference between 2 groups in the loss of weight and body BMI. The available evidence shows that patients receiving home enteral nutrition yielded a significantly better BMI and lower decrease in body weight than those without after surgical resection of oesophageal cancer. We conclude that HEN could serve as an effective intervention for patients undergoing oesophagectomy. Moreover, the optimal time for patients receiving HEN could be 4-8 weeks after discharge. Feeding via jejunostomy and nasointestinal tube are feasible and safety approaches for HEN.
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.