ArticleORL-head and neck nursing : official journal of the Society of Otorhinolaryngology and Head-Neck Nurses2025
Evaluating Effective Feeding Methods for Nutritional Management in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Post-Surgery: A Systematic Review.
Article in ORL-head and neck nursing : official journal of the Society of Otorhinolaryngology and Head-Neck Nurses, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of feeding interventions-early oral feeding, nasogastric tube feeding, and gastrostomy tube feeding-in supporting postoperative recovery in head and neck cancer patients. The primary objective is to identify the most effective feeding strategy based on outcomes such as wound dehiscence, infections, aspiration, pharyngo-cutaneous fistula, flap necrosis, and length of hospital stay. Methods: Studies were selected based on specific inclusion criteria, focusing on head and neck cancer patients receiving alternate feeding methods post-surgery. Databases searched included PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus, with the last search conducted on April 10, 2023. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools (RoB-2 for randomized studies and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies). Data were synthesized and results presented in structured tables, comparing clinical outcomes across feeding methods. Results: Ten studies involving 623 participants met the inclusion criteria. Early oral feeding was associated with reduced hospital stay and comparable or lower rates of complications, such as wound dehiscence and infections, relative to nasogastric and gastrostomy feeding. Among studies comparing early oral and nasogastric feeding, early oral feeding showed a potential advantage in recovery time, although gastrostomy feeding presented mixed outcomes with occasional higher infection rates. Discussion: This review highlights the benefits of early oral feeding in enhancing recovery and minimizing complications. Limitations include heterogeneity in study designs, small sample sizes, and variability in outcome definitions, which may affect the robustness of these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41476641PMC12752812What 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.