The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Perioperative Parenteral Nutrition: A Meta-Analysis
Abstract
We used a meta-analysis protocol to evaluate the results of 18 controlled trials that measured the effectiveness of perioperative total parenteral nutrition. The pooled results of 11 trials that were randomized or quasi-randomized showed trends suggesting that total parenteral nutrition reduced the risk for complications from major surgery (p = 0.21) and fatalities (p = 0.21). Consideration of these pooled estimates of the effectiveness of this intervention must be offset by the poor quality of the trials' methodologies and the iatrogenic complications (pneumothorax, septicemia) that occurred at a pooled rate of 0.067. Alternately, other design flaws, such as the failure to exclude patients who were not malnourished from the trials, may have limited the ability of these trials to show the effectiveness of total parenteral nutrition. The evidence available up to August 1986 shows that the routine use of perioperative total parenteral nutrition in unselected patients having major surgery is not justified; however, this intervention may be helpful in subgroups of these patients who are at high risk.
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
What is subjective global assessment of nutritional status?
Detsky, A., McLaughlin, Baker, J., Johnston, N., Whittaker, S., Mendelson, R., & Jeejeebhoy, K. (1987) · Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · doi:10.1177/014860718701100108 · Cited by 3,252
Self-citationMeta-Analysis in Clinical Research
L'ABBÉ, K. A., DETSKY, A. S., & O'ROURKE, K. (1987) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-107-2-224 · Cited by 1,267
Self-citationNutritional Assessment: A Comparison of Clinical Judgment and Objective Measurements
Baker, J. P., Detsky, A. S., Wesson, D. E., Wolman, S. L., Stewart, S., Whitewell, J., Langer, B., & Jeejeebhoy, K. N. (1982) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198204223061606 · Cited by 1,019
Self-citation
Cited by
McClave, S. A., Taylor, B. E., Martindale, R. G., Warren, M. M., Johnson, D. R., Braunschweig, C., McCarthy, M. S., Davanos, E., Rice, T. W., Cresci, G. A., et al. (2016) · Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · doi:10.1177/0148607115621863 · Cited by 3,982
KONDRUP, J. (2003) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/s0261-5614(02)00214-5 · Cited by 3,063
Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies
Deeks, J., Dinnes, J., D'Amico, R., Sowden, A., Sakarovitch, C., Song, F., Petticrew, M., & Altman, D. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7270 · Cited by 2,907
McClave, S. A., Martindale, R. G., Vanek, V. W., McCarthy, M., Roberts, P., Taylor, B., Ochoa, J. B., Napolitano, L., Cresci, G., the A.S.P.E.N. Board of Directors, et al. (2009) · Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · doi:10.1177/0148607109335234 · Cited by 1,873
Taylor, B. E., McClave, S. A., Martindale, R. G., Warren, M. M., Johnson, D. R., Braunschweig, C., McCarthy, M. S., Davanos, E., Rice, T. W., Cresci, G. A., et al. (2016) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000001525 · Cited by 1,476
Metadata
- Authors
- DETSKY, A. S., BAKER, J. P., O'ROURKE, K., & GOEL, V.
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 1987-08-01
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 195-203
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- OpenAlex
- W2012222955
- Cited by
- 283
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 4.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Perioperative Parenteral Nutrition: A Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/0003-4819-107-2-195
- The paper
- DETSKY, A. S., BAKER, J. P., O'ROURKE, K., & GOEL, V. (1987). Perioperative Parenteral Nutrition: A Meta-Analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-107-2-195
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.
