Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37304183›Full record

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.

Dóra Lili Sindler, Péter Mátrai, Lajos Szakó, Dávid Berki, Gergő Berke, Armand Csontos, Csenge Papp, Péter Hegyi, András Papp

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapyWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. [Robot-assisted esophageal surgery].Magyar onkologia · 2024
    Review
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

9 authors.

Dóra Lili SindlerDepartment of Surgery, Clinical Center, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Péter MátraiInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Lajos SzakóInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Dávid BerkiFirst Department of Surgery, Military Hospital Medical Centre, Hungarian Defense Forces, Budapest, Hungary.
Gergő BerkeInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Armand CsontosDepartment of Surgery, Clinical Center, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Csenge PappDepartment of Surgery, Clinical Center, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Péter HegyiInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
András PappDepartment of Surgery, Clinical Center, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

early oral feeding (EOF)Erasmeta-analysisupper GI cancerupper GI surgery

Identifiers

PMID37304183
PMCPMC10248085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.