CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 116Enhanced Recovery After SurgeryClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Early Oral Feeding as Compared With Traditional Timing of Oral Feeding After Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Willcutts, Kate F., Chung, Mei C., Erenberg, Cheryl L., Finn, Kristen L., Schirmer, Bruce D., Byham-Gray, Laura D.·2016·Annals of Surgery
DOI 10.1097/sla.0000000000001644
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective To compare the effects of early oral feeding to traditional (or late) timing of oral feeding after upper gastrointestinal surgery on clinical outcomes. Background Early postoperative oral feeding is becoming more common, particularly as part of multimodal or fast-track protocols. However, concerns remain about the safety of early oral feeding after upper gastrointestinal surgery. Methods Comprehensive literature searches were conducted across 5 databases from January 1980 until June 2015 without language restriction. Risk of bias of included studies was appraised and random-effects model meta-analyses were performed to synthesize outcomes of anastomotic leaks, pneumonia, nasogastric tube reinsertion, reoperation, readmissions, and mortality. Results Fifteen studies comprising 2112 adult patients met all the inclusion criteria. Mean hospital stay was significantly shorter in the early-fed group than in the late-fed group [weighted mean difference = -1.72 d, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.25 to -2.20, P Conclusions Early postoperative oral feeding as compared with traditional (or late) timing is associated with shorter hospital length of stay and is not associated with an increase in clinically relevant complications.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/sla.0000000000001644

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 36 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Gerritsen, 2014, Early oral feeding after pancreatoduodenectomy enhances recovery without increasing morbidity, HPB, 16, 656, 10.1111/hpb.12197 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–116 of 116

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Willcutts, K. F., Chung, M. C., Erenberg, C. L., Finn, K. L., Schirmer, B. D., & Byham-Gray, L. D.
Affiliations
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
ORCID
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2016-07
Volume
264
Issue
1
Pages
54-63
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/sla.0000000000001644
OpenAlex
W2320169563
Cited by
115
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5
FWCI
1.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Rutgers University Community Repository (Rutgers University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Enhanced Recovery After Surgery
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Gastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Keywords
early oral feeding, upper gastrointestinal surgery, anastomotic leakage, postoperative pneumonia, reoperation, hospital readmission, postoperative mortality, length of hospital stay, enhanced recovery after surgery
MeSH terms
Enteral Nutrition, Humans, Intubation, Gastrointestinal, Length of Stay, Postoperative Care, Risk Factors, Digestive System Surgical Procedures, Time Factors, Gastrointestinal Tract

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