The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Enteral versus parenteral nutrition for acute pancreatitis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Acute pancreatitis creates a catabolic stress state promoting a systemic inflammatory response and nutritional deterioration. Adequate supply of nutrients plays an important role in recovery. Total parenteral nutrition (TPN) has been standard practice for providing exogenous nutrients to patients with severe acute pancreatitis. However, recent data suggest that enteral nutrition (EN) is not only feasible, but safer and more effective.Therefore, we sought to update our systematic review to re-evaluate the level of evidence. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of TPN versus EN on mortality, morbidity and length of hospital stay in patients with acute pancreatitis. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were identified by computerized searches of The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Additional studies were identified by searching Scisearch, bibliographies of review articles and identified trials. The search was undertaken in August 2000 and updated in September 2002, October 2003, November 2004 and November 2008. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized clinical trials comparing TPN to EN in patients with acute pancreatitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed trial quality. A standardized form was used to extract relevant data. MAIN RESULTS: Eight trials with a total of 348 participants were included. Comparing EN to TPN for acute pancreatitis, the relative risk (RR) for death was 0.50 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.91), for multiple organ failure (MOF) was 0.55 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.81), for systemic infection was 0.39 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.65), for operative interventions was 0.44 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.67), for local septic complications was 0.74 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.35), and for other local complications was 0.70 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.13). Mean length of hospital stay was reduced by 2.37 days in EN vs TPN groups (95% CI -7.18 to 2.44). Furthermore, a subgroup analysis for EN vs TPN in patients with severe acute pancreatitis showed a RR for death of 0.18 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.58) and a RR for MOF of 0.46 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.29). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute pancreatitis, enteral nutrition significantly reduced mortality, multiple organ failure, systemic infections, and the need for operative interventions compared to those who received TPN. In addition, there was a trend towards a reduction in length of hospital stay. These data suggest that EN should be considered the standard of care for patients with acute pancreatitis requiring nutritional support.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Practice guidelines in acute pancreatitis
Banks, P. A., Freeman, M. L., & the Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology (2006) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00856.x · Cited by 2,050
The Biology of Human Starvation: Volume I
KEYS, A., BROŽEK, J., HENSCHEL, A., MICKELSEN, O., & TAYLOR, H. L. (1950) · doi:10.5749/j.ctv9b2tqv · Cited by 2,039
The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis
Jüni, P. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1054 · Cited by 1,981
Gupta, R., Patel, K., Calder, P. C., Yaqoob, P., Primrose, J. N., & Johnson, C. D. (2003) · Pancreatology · doi:10.1159/000073657 · Cited by 256
Early Nasogastric Feeding in Predicted Severe Acute Pancreatitis: A Clinical, Randomized Study
Eckerwall, G. E., Axelsson, J. B., & Andersson, R. G. (2006) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000246866.01930.58 · Cited by 195
Cited by
Practice guidelines in acute pancreatitis
Banks, P. A., Freeman, M. L., & the Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology (2006) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00856.x · Cited by 2,050
Boxhoorn, L., Voermans, R. P., Bouwense, S. A., Bruno, M. J., Verdonk, R. C., Boermeester, M. A., van Santvoort, H. C., & Besselink, M. G. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31310-6 · Cited by 1,049
Arvanitakis, M., Dumonceau, J.-M., Albert, J., Badaoui, A., Bali, M., Barthet, M., Besselink, M., Deviere, J., Oliveira Ferreira, A., Gyökeres, T., et al. (2018) · Endoscopy · doi:10.1055/a-0588-5365 · Cited by 538
Acute pancreatitis: recent advances through randomised trials
van Dijk, S. M., Hallensleben, N. D. L., van Santvoort, H. C., Fockens, P., van Goor, H., Bruno, M. J., & Besselink, M. G. (2017) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2016-313595 · Cited by 466
Clinical practice guideline: management of acute pancreatitis
Greenberg, J. A., Hsu, J., Bawazeer, M., Marshall, J., Friedrich, J. O., Nathens, A., Coburn, N., May, G. R., Pearsall, E., & McLeod, R. S. (2016) · Canadian Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1503/cjs.015015 · Cited by 429
Metadata
- Authors
- Al-Omran, M., AlBalawi, Z. H., Tashkandi, M. F., & Al-Ansary, L. A.
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-01-20
- Volume
- 2010
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- CD002837-CD002837
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-1858
- OpenAlex
- W1896125460
- Cited by
- 421
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 19.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Enteral versus parenteral nutrition for acute pancreatitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd002837.pub2
- The paper
- Al-Omran, M., AlBalawi, Z. H., Tashkandi, M. F., & Al-Ansary, L. A. (2010). Enteral versus parenteral nutrition for acute pancreatitis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd002837.pub2
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.