ReviewAsia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition2026
Enteral nutrition intolerance: Evidence mapping of definitions and assessment practices to inform future gastric cancer-specific assessment tool development.
Review in Asia Pacific 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesEnteral nutrition intolerance can limit achievement of nutrition goals, but its definitions and assessment methods vary widely. This review mapped operational definitions and identified evidence gaps relevant to patients after gastrectomy for gastric cancer. METHODS AND STUDY
designThe Web of Science Core Collection was searched for original clinical studies published from 2015 to 2025 that re-ported explicit operational definitions or ascertainment criteria. Study populations, feeding routes, assessment components, incidence rates, and outcomes were charted and synthesized descriptively.
resultsForty-seven studies were included. Most involved critically ill populations, whereas only three focused on patients after gastric cancer surgery. Definitions used heterogeneous combinations of gastrointestinal symptoms, gastric residual volume, feeding interruption or rate reduction, failure to meet energy targets, and other indicators, with inconsistent thresholds and observation windows. A preliminary three-domain framework was identified: gastrointestinal and dumping-related symptoms, route-appropriate objective indicators, and treatment response or feeding adjustments.
conclusionsExisting definitions are heterogeneous and largely derived from intensive care settings. Standardized reporting and disease-specific validation are required before a gastric cancer-specific assessment tool can be developed.
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.