ReviewEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2026
Intermittent vs. continuous: a comparative narrative review of enteral and parenteral nutrition support strategies in the perioperative setting.
Review in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Enteral and parenteral nutrition are two primary methods of nutritional support in clinical settings. Their administration modes-continuous or intermittent-have garnered increasing attention in recent research. Continuous enteral and parenteral nutrition provide steady metabolic support over extended periods, particularly beneficial for critically ill patients or those with high nutritional demands. Conversely, intermittent feeding, delivered at scheduled intervals, simulates natural eating patterns and may offer advantages in gastrointestinal function and metabolic regulation. Recent studies indicate notable differences between continuous and intermittent feeding in perioperative patients, especially regarding metabolic control, gastrointestinal tolerance, immune function, and postoperative complications. Continuous feeding simplifies clinical management through stable nutrient delivery but may increase the risks of metabolic overload, liver dysfunction, and gastrointestinal intolerance. In contrast, intermittent feeding promotes recovery of gastrointestinal function and potentially reduces the risk of infections and other postoperative complications. This review aims to assess the clinical outcomes of continuous versus intermittent enteral and parenteral nutrition in perioperative patients, with a primary focus on gastrointestinal surgery populations (where gut-specific mechanisms are most critical). By evaluating these feeding strategies in terms of postoperative complications, recovery, metabolic regulation, and quality of life, we seek to provide evidence-based recommendations for optimizing perioperative nutritional care and improving patient outcomes.
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.