Enteral versus parenteral nutrition for acute pancreatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute pancreatitis creates a catabolic stress state promoting a systemic inflammatory response and nutritional deterioration. Adequate supply of nutrients plays an important role to ensure optimum recovery. Total parenteral nutrition (TPN) has been the standard practice for providing exogenous nutrients to patients with severe acute pancreatitis. However, recent data suggest that enteral nutrition (EN) is feasible. Thus, a comparison of EN and TPN in patients with acute pancreatitis needs to be made. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) versus enteral nutrition (EN) on mortality, morbidity and length of hospital stay in patient with acute pancreatitis. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were identified by computerized searches of The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Additional studies were identified and included where relevant by searching Scisearch, the bibliographies of review articles and identified trials, and personal files. The search was undertaken in August, 2000. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized clinical trials, in which nutrition support with TPN were compared to EN in patients with acute pancreatitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed trial quality. Information was collected on death, length of hospital stay, systemic infection, local septic complications, and other local complications. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials with a total of 70 participants were included. The relative risk (RR) for death with EN vs TPN was 0.56 (95% CI 0.05 to 5.62). Mean length of hospital stay was reduced with EN (WMD -2.20, 95% CI -3.62 to -0.78). RR for systemic infection with EN vs TPN was 0.61 (95% CI 0.29 to 1.28). In one trial, RR for local septic complications and other local complications with EN vs TPN was 0.56 (95% CI 0.12 to 2.68) and 0.16 (95% CI 0.01 to 2.86) respectively. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Although there is a trend towards reductions in the adverse outcomes of acute pancreatitis after administration of EN, clearly there are insufficient data to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of EN versus TPN. Further trials are required with sufficient size to account for clinical heterogeneity and to measure all relevant outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".