ReviewFrontiers in surgery2023
Faster recovery and bowel movement after early oral feeding compared to late oral feeding after upper GI tumor resections: a meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Multimodal prehabilitation for upper gastrointestinal tumors: effects on postoperative morbidity and mortality - a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2026Pooled it
- Early oral feeding after laparoscopic total gastrectomy in gastric cancer patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapyWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2024Pooled it
- An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of early oral feeding vs. traditional oral feeding after gastric cancer surgery.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Effectiveness of early enteral nutrition support in patients undergoing gastrointestinal perforation repair surgery within the enhanced recovery.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Nutritional Optimization of the Surgical Patient: A Narrative Review.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2025Review
- [Robot-assisted esophageal surgery].Magyar onkologia · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There were more than 1 million new cases of stomach cancer concerning oesophageal cancer, there were more than 600,000 new cases of oesophageal cancer in 2020. After a successful resection in these cases, the role of early oral feeding (EOF) was questionable, due to the possibility of fatal anastomosis leakage. It is still debated whether EOF is more advantageous compared to late oral feeding. Our study aimed to compare the effect of early postoperative oral feeding and late oral feeding after upper gastrointestinal resections due to malignancy. Methods: Two authors performed an extensive search and selection of articles independently to identify randomized control trials (RCT) of the question of interest. Statistical analyses were performed including mean difference, odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals, statistical heterogeneity, and statistical publication bias, to identify potential significant differences. The Risk of Bias and the quality of evidence were estimated. Results: We identified 6 relevant RCTs, which included 703 patients. The appearance of the first gas (MD = -1.16; Conclusion: Early postoperative oral feeding, compared to late oral feeding has no risk of several possible postoperative morbidities after upper GI surgeries, but has several advantageous effects on a patient's recovery. Systematic Review Registration: identifier, CRD 42022302594.
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.