Trial reportGut and liver2025
Early Oral Refeeding in Patients with Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Gut and liver, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04750044 (Timing of Oral Refeeding in Post-ERCP Pancreatitis), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Timing of Oral Refeeding in Post-ERCP Pancreatitis
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aims: To assess the safety and efficacy of early oral refeeding (ERF) versus delayed refeeding (DRF) in patients with mild post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). Methods: Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the ERF or DRF group. Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the ERF or DRF group. In the ERF group, feeding began 24 hours after the diagnosis of PEP; in the DRF group, feeding commenced once normal bowel sounds returned and pain had decreased to a visual analog scale score of <2. The diet was advanced from clear fluids to soft foods according to patient tolerance. Refeeding was temporarily halted if the visual analog scale score reached ≥5 points or if intake was refused due to pain. Resumption required normal amylase/lipase levels, pain relief, and bowel movement restoration. Discharge criteria included patient well-being >24 hours post-diet. The primary outcome was PEP hospitalization duration, and secondary outcomes were the incidence of severe acute pancreatitis, readmission rate (<30 days), and PEP-related mortality rate. Results: A total of 80 patients (40 in each ERF and DRF group) were enrolled across nine referral centers. Baseline characteristics, procedural parameters and initial PEP severity were not significantly different between the two groups. Four ERF and three DRF patients had refeeding interruptions. ERF significantly reduced PEP hospitalization duration compared to DRF (2.93±1.59 days vs 3.78±1.97 days: relative risk, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.59 to 0.97; p=0.026). Rates of severe acute pancreatitis, readmission, and mortality/morbidity related to PEP were similar between the two groups. Conclusions: ERF effectively shortens hospitalization in mild PEP patients without increasing safety risks (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04750044).
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.