SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2024
Early oral feeding within two hours for parturients compared with delayed oral feeding after cesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The efficacy and safety of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in cesarean delivery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Pooled it
- Immediate vs On-demand Maternal Oral Feeding for Parturients After Caesarean Section:Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2025Pooled it
- Assessment of self-management empowerment program on sense of coherence, self-efficacy and postpartum anxiety in cesarean mothers randomized trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Impact of varied feeding protocols on gastrointestinal function recovery in the early postoperative period following repeat cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Trial
- Evidence-based medical procedures to optimise caesarean outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Review
- Optimizing maternal recovery: insights into enhanced recovery after Cesarean delivery.Anesthesia and pain medicine · 2025Review
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
backgroundIt is recommended that postpartum women undergo early oral feeding (EOF) after cesarean section (CS). However, the optimal early time for oral feeding after CS is unclear. We performed a meta-analysis to assess whether EOF within two hours is superior to delayed oral feeding (DOF) after CS.
methodsThe PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception to February 2024 for randomized controlled trials comparing EOF versus DOF after CS. Primary outcomes included the time to normal bowel function. The secondary outcomes included postoperative complications, the time to ambulation after surgery, the time to removal of the catheter, the time to start of a regular diet, the length of hospital stay and patient satisfaction.
resultsData from 8 studies involving a total of 2572 women were obtained. EOF within two hours was significantly associated with shorter durations of return bowel movement (WMD, - 2.41, 95% CI, - 3.80-- 1.02; p < 0.001; I
conclusionsThis meta-analysis provides evidence that EOF within two hours after CS has comparable safety with DOF, and can accelerate the recovery time for normal bowel function.
trial registrationINPLASY202320055.
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.