SynthesisNutrients2024
Outcomes for Patients Receiving Multi-Chamber Bags for the Delivery of Parenteral Nutrition: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Nutrients, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- Bridging the Gap in the Clinical Application of Advanced Parenteral Nutrition Formulations: From Efficacy to Real-World Challenges.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Review
- Home parenteral nutrition under an activity based funding model-An Australian costing study.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2025Article
- Evaluation of combined multi-chamber with compounded bags and multi-chamber bags only for British adults on home parenteral nutrition: A mixed methods pilot study.Intestinal Failure (New York, N.Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundParenteral nutrition (PN) is required by people with intestinal failure and can be delivered as multi-chambered bags (MCBs) or individually compounded (COM) bags. This systematic review aimed to examine the evidence base for clinical outcomes and/or quality of life (QoL) in adults receiving PN as MCBs compared to COMs in hospital and community settings.
methodsA systematic database search was conducted between January 2015 and May 2024. Studies assessing adults in receipt of MCBs were included. Quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs appraisal tools. A narrative synthesis was performed due to study heterogeneity. PROSPERO: CRD42022352806.
resultsTen studies including 87,727 adults were included, with 20,192 receiving PN from MCBs and 67,535 from COMs. Eight studies reported on PN given in hospital and two in the home. Five hospital-based and one home-based study reported that MCBs were well tolerated and provided adequate nutrition. Three hospital-based studies reported that MCBs had lower post-operative infections and a lower mean risk of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs). Two home-based studies reported no difference in CRBSI. Five hospital-based studies reported no difference between groups in length of hospital stay. Three hospital-based studies reported the cost to be lower for MCBs than COMs, and no studies reported QoL.
conclusionsThe studies included show that MCBs provided in hospital are safe and non-inferior to COMs and may be more cost-effective. There were few high-quality studies and no data on QoL; therefore, further work is required to improve the certainty of the evidence and to establish the level of QoL when using MCBs.
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.