IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0112062.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Early Oral Feeding after Gastric Cancer Surgery Feasible? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaoping Liu
  • Da Wang
  • Liansheng Zheng
  • Tingyu Mou
  • Hao Liu
  • Guoxin Li

Abstract

Aim: To assess the feasibility and safety of early oral feeding (EOF) after gastrectomy for gastric cancer through a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials. Methods: A literature search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane library databases was performed for eligible studies published between January 1995 and March 2014. Systematic review was carried out to identify randomized controlled trials comparing EOF and traditional postoperative oral feeding after gastric cancer surgery. Meta-analyses were performed by either a fixed effects model or a random effects model according to the heterogeneity using RevMan 5.2 software. Results: Six studies remained for final analysis. Included studies were published between 2005 and 2013 reporting on a total of 454 patients. No significant differences were observed for postoperative complication (RR = 0.95; 95%CI, 0.70 to 1.29; P = 0.75), the tolerability of oral feeding (RR = 0.98; 95%CI, 0.91 to 1.06; P = 0.61), readmission rate (RR = 1; 95%CI, 0.30 to 3.31; P = 1.00) and incidence of anastomotic leakage (RR = 0.31; 95%CI, 0.01 to 7.30; P = 0.47) between two groups. EOF after gastrectomy for gastric cancer was associated with significant shorter duration of the hospital stay (WMD = −2.36; 95%CI, −3.37 to −1.34; P

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaoping Liu & Da Wang & Liansheng Zheng & Tingyu Mou & Hao Liu & Guoxin Li, 2014. "Is Early Oral Feeding after Gastric Cancer Surgery Feasible? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-11, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0112062
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112062
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0112062
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0112062&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0112062?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guixiang Liao & Jiarong Chen & Chen Ren & Rong Li & Shasha Du & Guozhu Xie & Haijun Deng & Kaijun Yang & Yawei Yuan, 2013. "Robotic versus Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ayda Kebapcı & Nevin Kanan, 2018. "Effects of nurse‐led clinical pathway in coronary artery bypass graft surgery: A quasi‐experimental study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5-6), pages 980-988, March.
    2. Akinori Hisashige & Nobuyuki Shimizu & Yasuyuki Seto, 2021. "Cost-Effectiveness of Early Oral Feeding Following Total Gastrectomy," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(1), pages 1-64, January.
    3. Jin-Woo Kim & Yong-Gum Park & Jae-Hyung Kim & Eui-Chan Jang & Yong-Chan Ha, 2020. "The Optimal Time of Postoperative Feeding After Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 29(1), pages 31-36, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0112062. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.