SynthesisNutrition journal2026
Effect and safety of nutritional supplements on clinical outcomes in patients with acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Nutrition journal, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effectiveness of nutritional supplements is controversial compared to standard supplementation in the clinical management of individuals with acute pancreatitis (AP). We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare and rank their efficacy.
methodsFour databases (Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, PubMed) were searched for randomized controlled trials. Random-effects models to derive outcome estimates, with risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) calculated for each comparison. The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) was used to rank the relative efficacy of all therapies.
resultsSeventeen trials including 1,313 patients were analyzed. ω-3 fatty acid supplementation emerged as the most effective intervention. It significantly shortened hospital stay (mean difference = -5.82 days; 95% CI -10.62 to -1.01) and intensive care unit (ICU) stay (mean difference = -6.09 days; 95% CI -8.98 to -3.20). It also reduced ICU stay in patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) (mean difference = -6.09 days; 95% CI -8.98 to -3.02). Moreover, ω-3 fatty acids reduced the risk of sepsis (RR = 0.35; 95% CI 0.14–0.89) in AP and SAP (RR = 0.30; 95% CI 0.10–0.93). Synbiotics dramatically reduced the incidence of bacteremia (RR = 0.27; 95% CI = 0.09–0.86). It also reduced ICU stay with the enteral route (mean difference = -3.22 days; 95% CI, -3.95 to -2.49). However, none of the regimens produced significant improvements in mortality, infectious complications, time to oral feeding, or multiorgan failure (MOF).
conclusionsThis NMA preliminary suggests that ω-3 fatty acid supplementation demonstrates the greatest efficacy in reducing the length of hospital and ICU stays in individuals with AP. Hence, it should be considered for routine use in AP, as it may reduce the future medical burden. Furthermore, increasing ω-3 fatty acids and synbiotics may contribute to a reduced incidence of sepsis and bacteremia, respectively.
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.