Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,152

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

Enteral Versus Parenteral Feeding Effects on Septic Morbidity After Blunt and Penetrating Abdominal Trauma

Open access
KUDSK, KENNETH A., CROCE, MARTIN A., FABIAN, TIMOTHY C., MINARD, GAYLE, TOLLEY, ELIZABETH A., PORET, H. ANDREW, KUHL, MELODY R., BROWN, REX O.·1992·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

To investigate the importance of route of nutrient administration on septic complications after blunt and penetrating trauma, 98 patients with an abdominal trauma index of at least 15 were randomized to either enteral or parenteral feeding within 24 hours of injury. Septic morbidity was defined as pneumonia, intra-abdominal abscess, empyema, line sepsis, or fasciitis with wound dehiscence. Patients were fed formulas with almost identical amounts of fat, carbohydrate, and protein. Two patients died early in the study. The enteral group sustained significantly fewer pneumonias (11.8% versus total parenteral nutrition 31.%, p less than 0.02), intra-abdominal abscess (1.9% versus total parenteral nutrition 13.3%, p less than 0.04), and line sepsis (1.9% versus total parenteral nutrition 13.3%, p less than 0.04), and sustained significantly fewer infections per patient (p less than 0.03), as well as significantly fewer infections per infected patient (p less than 0.05). Although there were no differences in infection rates in patients with injury severity score less than 20 or abdominal trauma index less than or equal to 24, there were significantly fewer infections in patients with an injury severity score greater than 20 (p less than 0.002) and abdominal trauma index greater than 24 (p less than 0.005). Enteral feeding produced significantly fewer infections in the penetrating group (p less than 0.05) and barely missed the statistical significance in the blunt-injured patients (p = 0.08). In the subpopulation of patients requiring more than 20 units of blood, sustaining an abdominal trauma index greater than 40 or requiring reoperation within 72 hours, there were significantly fewer infections per patient (p = 0.03) and significantly fewer infections per infected patient (p less than 0.01). There is a significantly lower incidence of septic morbidity in patients fed enterally after blunt and penetrating trauma, with most of the significant changes occurring in the more severely injured patients. The authors recommend that the surgeon obtain enteral access at the time of initial celiotomy to assure an opportunity for enteral delivery of nutrients, particularly in the most severely injured patients.

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 · 10.1097/00000658-199205000-00013

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

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 1,152

Metadata

Authors
KUDSK, K. A., CROCE, M. A., FABIAN, T. C., MINARD, G., TOLLEY, E. A., PORET, H. A., KUHL, M. R., & BROWN, R. O.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
1992-05
Volume
215
Issue
5
Pages
503-513
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1973022658
Cited by
1,152
References
1
FWCI
35.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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 Feeding Effects on Septic Morbidity After Blunt and Penetrating Abdominal Trauma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00000658-199205000-00013
The paper
KUDSK, K. A., CROCE, M. A., FABIAN, T. C., MINARD, G., TOLLEY, E. A., PORET, H. A., KUHL, M. R., & BROWN, R. O. (1992). Enteral Versus Parenteral Feeding Effects on Septic Morbidity After Blunt and Penetrating Abdominal Trauma. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199205000-00013

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.