Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42273555›Full record

ReviewHepatobiliary surgery and nutrition2026

A systematic review of methodology in nutritional trials in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy.

James M Halle-Smith, Keshav Krishnan, Jasmin Kirupananthan, Kayaththery Varathan, Richard Laing, Mary E Phillips, Keith J Roberts, Andrew M Smith, Samir Pathak

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

James M Halle-SmithDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, University of Birmingham and Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6241-5680
Keshav KrishnanDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Jasmin KirupananthanDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Kayaththery VarathanDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Richard LaingDepartment of Upper GI Surgery, Royal Stoke University Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Mary E PhillipsDepartment of Nutrition and Dietetics, Royal Surrey University Hospitals, Guildford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9033-9993
Keith J RobertsDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, University of Birmingham and Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Andrew M SmithDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, St James Hospital Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Samir PathakDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, St James Hospital Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Malnutrition is highly prevalent amongst pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) patients and remains a major modifiable risk factor for postoperative morbidity and mortality. However, studying nutritional interventions is difficult due to multiple methodological issues. The aim of this review is to report and compare the administration of different nutritional therapies as well as reporting of nutritional outcomes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of PD patients. Methods: A systematic review of RCTs reporting the effect of different nutritional interventions after PD was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Results: In the 20 suitable studies identified, there was widespread variation in when oral diet was started, ranging between postoperative day (POD)1 and POD7. Regarding enteral tube feeding, multiple different feed types were used and feed administration was highly variable, for both rate and duration. In terms of outcome types, 17 (85%) studies reported biochemical outcomes with serum albumin being the most common (12 studies, 57%) and 12 (57%) reported anthropometric outcomes with body mass index (BMI) being the most common (7 studies, 33%). Conclusions: Amongst the published RCTs investigating the effect of different nutritional routes after PD, widespread variation in the methodology was evident. This has implications for both interpretation of results and for design of future nutritional trials. Multiple biochemical and anthropometric outcomes were reported but quality of life measures, such as the SF-36 recommended by a recently published core outcome set (COS), were not used.

Indexed as

malnutritionPancreatoduodenectomy (PD)systematic review

Identifiers

PMID42273555
PMCPMC13247780

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.