MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416999712 · doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2025.111321

What is the impact of nutrition interventions on incidence of anastomotic leak after colorectal surgery? A systematic review of randomized trials

2025· review· en· W4416999712 on OpenAlexaff
Leslee Hasil, Andrew Milks, Angelea Panagakos, Dominique Engel, Emily Jaeger-McEnroe, Chelsia Gillis

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Surgical Oncology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerioperativeIncidence (geometry)Randomized controlled trialParenteral nutritionColorectal surgeryPsychological interventionAnastomosisClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nutrition-related factors have been associated with increased incidence of anastomotic leak (AL) following colorectal surgery; however, specific perioperative nutrition recommendations remain unclear. This systematic review examined the extent to which perioperative nutrition interventions influence the incidence of AL compared to standard care. On November 4, 2024, we searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials involving adults undergoing colorectal surgery for any indication. Interventions included any perioperative nutrition or dietary support versus standard care, and our primary outcome was incidence of AL, defined as a failed surgical anastomosis with leakage of bowel contents. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, and findings were synthesized narratively. Sixteen trials (n = 2013) were included, primarily from Asia and Europe, with most trials (81 %) exclusively recruiting patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. Interventions included probiotics (50 %), parenteral nutrition (25 %), enteral nutrition (6 %), oral nutrition supplements (12 %), and mixed therapies (6 %). A total of 139 (6.9 %) AL events were reported, although most trials (63 %) did not clearly define or explain AL measurement and only one listed AL as the primary outcome. Most trials (81 %) showed no difference in incidence of AL; however, two trials (13 %) saw a reduction, and one trial (6 %) reported an increase. Eight (50 %) trials were at high risk of bias. In conclusion, few low-risk-of-bias trials have evaluated the influence of perioperative nutrition on anastomotic leak. Given the infrequent occurrence of AL, large, adequately powered studies are required to detect meaningful differences. Consequently, current evidence remains insufficient to draw firm conclusions about the role of perioperative nutrition on AL risk.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.017
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Surgical OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207