ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2023
Efficacy of enteral nutrition for patients with acute pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta‑analysis of 17 studies.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the Clinical Course, Management and Outcomes of Acute Pancreatitis in Aged and Young Patients.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Detrimental and Beneficial Diets Regulate Acute Pancreatitis Through Convergent Gut Microbiota Pathways.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Review
- Beyond the Pancreas: The Gut Microbiota in Acute Pancreatitis - From Mechanisms to Therapeutic Perspectives.Clinical and experimental gastroenterology · 2026Review
- Necrotic pancreatitis: modern approaches to the prevention of infected necrosis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Prediction model establishment and validation for enteral nutrition aspiration during hospitalization in patients with acute pancreatitis.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Exploring the gut microbiota's crucial role in acute pancreatitis and the novel therapeutic potential of derived extracellular vesicles.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nutrition support is a key method to treat acute pancreatitis (AP). Enteral nutrition (EN) has a role in treating AP, but the time point for EN initiation remains unclear. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of early EN (EEN) and delayed EN (DEN) based on different time points (24, 48 and 72 h). The relevant databases including Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane library were searched until Dec 1, 2022. Studies comparing EEN and DEN in AP were included. The relative risk (RR) was used for comparing categorical variables, while standard mean difference (SMD) was used for continuous variables, both reported with 95% CI. A total of 17 studies with 1,637 patients with AP was included in the present systematic review and meta-analysis. The patients in the DEN group showed a significantly higher risk of mortality compared with the EEN group (RR=1.95; 95% CI, 1.21-3.14; P=0.006). In subgroup analysis, when using 48 h as the cut-off time to distinguish EEN and DEN, the risk of mortality was 3.89-fold higher in the DEN group compared with that in the EN group (95% CI, 1.25-12.17; P=0.019). DEN also increased the occurrence of sepsis in patients with AP (RR=2.82; 95% CI, 1.10-7.18; P=0.03) and duration of hospital stay (P<0.001). The present systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that EEN decreased associated complications, length of hospitalization and mortality in patients with AP and therefore provided a safe approach to improve recovery but there is still controversy around the time point for EEN.
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.