SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2024
An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of early oral feeding vs. traditional oral feeding after gastric cancer surgery.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled 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
- Perioperative nutrition practices in gastrointestinal cancer surgery: A nationwide survey among German surgical departments.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Early oral feeding (EOF) has been shown to improve postoperative recovery for many surgeries. However, surgeons are still skeptical about EOF after gastric cancer surgery due to possible side effects. This updated systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of EOF in patients after gastric cancer surgery. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating EOF in patients after gastric cancer surgery were searched in the databases of PubMed, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane from 2005 to 2023, and an updated meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. Results: The results of 11 RCTs involving 1,352 patients were included and scrutinized in this analysis. Hospital days [weighted mean difference (WMD), -1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI), -2.14 to -1.30; p<0.00001), the time to first flatus (WMD, -0.72; 95% CI, -0.99 to -0.46; p<0.00001), and hospital costs (WMD, -3.78; 95% CI, -4.50 to -3.05; p<0.00001) were significantly decreased in the EOF group. Oral feeding tolerance [risk ratio (RR), 1.00; 95% CI, 0.95-1.04; p=0.85), readmission rates (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.50-3.28; p=0.61), postoperative complications (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.81-1.29; p=0.84), anastomotic leakage (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.25-2.78; p=0.76), and pulmonary infection (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.31-1.39; p=0.27) were not significantly statistical between two groups. Conclusion: This meta-analysis reveals that EOF could reduce hospital days, the time to first flatus, and hospital costs, but it was not associated with oral feeding tolerance, readmission rates, or postoperative complications especially anastomotic leakage and pulmonary infection, regardless of whether laparoscopic or open surgery, partial or total gastrectomy, or the timing of EOF initiation.
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.