MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102251256

Total parenteral nutrition in the surgical patient: a meta-analysis.

2001· article· en· W2102251256 on OpenAlexaff
D. Heyland, M Montalvo, Sarah Macdonald, Laurie Keefe, X Y Su, John Drover

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineParenteral nutritionComplicationRandomized controlled trialEnteral administrationConfidence intervalMeta-analysisMEDLINEClinical trialRelative riskSurgeryMortality rateIntensive care medicinePediatricsInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between total parenteral nutrition(TPN) and complication and death rates in surgical patients. DATA SOURCES: A computer search of published research on MEDLINE, personal files and a review of relevant reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: A review of 237 titles, abstracts or papers. Primary studies were included if they were randomized clinical trials of surgical patients that evaluated the effect of TPN (compared to no TPN or standard care) on complication and death rates. Studies comparing TPN to enteral nutrition (EN) were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Relevant data were abstracted on the methodology and outcomes of primary studies. Data were independently abstracted in duplicate. DATA SYNTHESIS: There were 27 randomized trials in surgical patients that compared the use of TPN to standard care (usual oral diet plus intravenous dextrose). When the results of these trials were aggregated, there was no effect on mortality (risk ratio = 0.97, 95% confidence intervals, 0.76 to 1.24). There were fewer major complications in patients who received TPN, although there was significant heterogeneity in the overall estimate (risk ratio = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.01). Because of this significant heterogeneity, several a priori hypotheses were examined. Studies that included only malnourished patients demonstrated a trend to a reduction in complication rates but no difference in death rate when compared with studies of patients who were not malnourished. Studies published in 1988 or earlier and studies with a lower methods score were associated with a significant reduction in complication rates and a trend to a reduction in death rate when compared with studies published after 1988 and studies with a higher methods score. There was no difference in studies that provided lipids as a component of TPN when compared with studies that did not. Studies that initiated TPN preoperatively demonstrated a trend to a reduction in complication rates but no difference in death rate when compared with studies that initiated TPN postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: TPN does not influence the death rate of surgical patients. It may reduce the complication rate, especially in malnourished patients, but study results are influenced by methodologic quality and year of publication.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.046
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations238
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207