Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 100

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized clinical trial on the effect of coffee on postoperative ileus following elective colectomy

Müller, S A, Rahbari, N N, Schneider, F, Warschkow, R, Simon, T, von Frankenberg, M, Bork, U, Weitz, J, Schmied, B M, Büchler, M W·2012·British Journal of Surgery
DOI 10.1002/bjs.8885
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Postoperative ileus is a common problem after abdominal surgery. It was postulated that coffee intake would decrease postoperative ileus after colectomy. Methods: This was a multicentre parallel open-label randomized trial. Patients with malignant or benign disease undergoing elective open or laparoscopic colectomy were assigned randomly before surgery to receive either coffee or water after the procedure (100 ml three times daily). The primary endpoint was time to first bowel movement; secondary endpoints were time to first flatus, time to tolerance of solid food, length of hospital stay and perioperative morbidity. Results: A total of 80 patients were randomized, 40 to each group. One patient in the water arm was excluded owing to a change in surgical procedure. Patient characteristics were similar in both groups. In intention-to-treat analysis, the time to the first bowel movement was significantly shorter in the coffee arm than in the water arm (mean(s.d.) 60·4(21·3) versus 74·0(21·6) h; P = 0·006). The time to tolerance of solid food (49·2(21·3) versus 55·8(30·0) h; P = 0·276) and time to first flatus (40·6(16·1) versus 46·4(20·1) h; P = 0·214) showed a similar trend, but the differences were not significant. Length of hospital stay (10·8(4·4) versus 11·3(4·5) days; P = 0·497) and morbidity (8 of 40 versus 10 of 39 patients; P = 0·550) were comparable in the two groups. Conclusion: Coffee consumption after colectomy was safe and was associated with a reduced time to first bowel action. Registration number: NCT01079442 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bjs.8885

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. Shibata, 1997, Patterns of intestinal motility recovery during the early stage following abdominal surgery: clinical and manometric study, World J Surg, 21, 806, 10.1007/s002689900310 · DOI
  2. Asao, 2002, Gum chewing enhances early recovery from postoperative ileus after laparoscopic colectomy, J Am Coll Surg, 195, 30, 10.1016/S1072-7515(02)01179-1 · DOI
  3. Miedema, 2002, Postoperative ileus after laparoscopic colectomy, J Am Coll Surg, 195, 901, 10.1016/S1072-7515(02)01493-X · DOI
  4. Jakobsen, 2006, Convalescence after colonic surgery with fast-track vs conventional care, Colorectal Dis, 8, 683, 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2006.00995.x · DOI
  5. Asgeirsson, 2010, Postoperative ileus: it costs more than you expect, J Am Coll Surg, 210, 228, 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.09.028 · DOI
  6. Livingston, 1990, Postoperative ileus, Dig Dis Sci, 35, 121, 10.1007/BF01537233 · DOI
  7. Kehlet, 2008, Evidence-based surgical care and the evolution of fast-track surgery, Ann Surg, 248, 189, 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31817f2c1a · DOI
  8. Rahbari, 2009, Meta-analysis of standard, restrictive and supplemental fluid administration in colorectal surgery, Br J Surg, 96, 331, 10.1002/bjs.6552 · DOI
  9. Kehlet, 2003, Anaesthesia, surgery, and challenges in postoperative recovery, Lancet, 362, 1921, 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14966-5 · DOI · Paper page
  10. George, 2008, A perception on health benefits of coffee, Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr, 48, 464, 10.1080/10408390701522445 · DOI
  11. Brown, 1990, Effect of coffee on distal colon function, Gut, 31, 450, 10.1136/gut.31.4.450 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Dindo, 2004, Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey, Ann Surg, 240, 205, 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae · DOI · Paper page
  13. Rahbari, 2010, Definition and grading of anastomotic leakage following anterior resection of the rectum: a proposal by the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer, Surgery, 147, 339, 10.1016/j.surg.2009.10.012 · DOI
  14. Schuster, 2006, Gum chewing reduces ileus after elective open sigmoid colectomy, Arch Surg, 141, 174, 10.1001/archsurg.141.2.174 · DOI
  15. Quah, 2006, Does gum chewing reduce postoperative ileus following open colectomy for left-sided colon and rectal cancer? A prospective randomized controlled trial, Colorectal Dis, 8, 64, 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2005.00884.x · DOI
  16. Mattei, 2006, Review of the pathophysiology and management of postoperative ileus, World J Surg, 30, 1382, 10.1007/s00268-005-0613-9 · DOI
  17. Story, 2009, A comprehensive review of evidence-based strategies to prevent and treat postoperative ileus, Dig Surg, 26, 265, 10.1159/000227765 · DOI
  18. Waldhausen, 1990, Gastrointestinal myoelectric and clinical patterns of recovery after laparotomy, Ann Surg, 211, 777, 10.1097/00000658-199006000-00018 · DOI
  19. Waldhausen, 1990, The effect of ambulation on recovery from postoperative ileus, Ann Surg, 212, 671, 10.1097/00000658-199012000-00004 · DOI
  20. Resnick, 1997, Delayed gastric emptying and postoperative ileus after nongastric abdominal surgery: part I, Am J Gastroenterol, 92, 751
  21. Iyer, 2009, Economic burden of postoperative ileus associated with colectomy in the United States, J Manag Care Pharm, 15, 485, 10.18553/jmcp.2009.15.6.485 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Sarawate, 2003, Economic burden of postoperative ileus (POI) in abdominal surgical procedures, Gastroenterology, 124, A828, 10.1016/S0016-5085(03)84177-X · DOI
  23. Kehlet, 2008, Postoperative ileus—an update on preventive techniques, Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol, 5, 552, 10.1038/ncpgasthep1230 · DOI
  24. Schwenk, 2005, Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, CD003145
  25. Noel, 2007, Minimally invasive colorectal resection outcomes: short-term comparison with open procedures, J Am Coll Surg, 204, 291, 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2006.10.002 · DOI
  26. Carli, 2001, The effect of intraoperative thoracic epidural anesthesia and postoperative analgesia on bowel function after colorectal surgery: a prospective, randomized trial, Dis Colon Rectum, 44, 1083, 10.1007/BF02234626 · DOI
  27. Raue, 2011, Laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticular disease has no advantages over open approach: midterm results of a randomized controlled trial, Langenbecks Arch Surg, 396, 973, 10.1007/s00423-011-0825-4 · DOI
  28. Büchler, 2008, Clinical trial: alvimopan for the management of post-operative ileus after abdominal surgery: results of an international randomized, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled clinical study, Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 28, 312, 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03696.x · DOI
  29. Bell, 2009, Economic analysis of alvimopan in North American Phase III efficacy trials, Am J Health Syst Pharm, 66, 1362, 10.2146/ajhp080329 · DOI

Cited by

See all 100

Metadata

Authors
Müller, S. A., Rahbari, N. N., Schneider, F., Warschkow, R., Simon, T., von Frankenberg, M., Bork, U., Weitz, J., Schmied, B. M., & Büchler, M. W.
Affiliations
  • Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany
  • Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
Venue
British Journal of Surgery
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2012-09-14
Volume
99
Issue
11
Pages
1530-1538
ISSN
  • 0007-1323
  • 1365-2168
DOI
10.1002/bjs.8885
Cited by
100
References
1
Language
en
Licence
academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)

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

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.