Cochrane · systematic review · CD010605
Enteral nutrition formulations for acute pancreatitis
Poropat, G, Giljaca, V, Hauser, G, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2015 · Cochrane Library
GutAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
25
current version
GRADE rated
18
No studies
7
Included studies
NR
No studies 7 · 28%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 13 · 52%Low 5 · 20%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Immunonutrition compared with control for acute pancreatitis
Population: patients with acute pancreatitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortality Immunonutrition vs control | RR 0.49 [0.29, 0.8] | 6 studies · 520 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Systemic inflammatory response syndrome Immunonutrition vs control | RR 1 [0.76, 1.31] | 3 studies · 278 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Organ failure Immunonutrition vs control | RR 0.75 [0.49, 1.13] | 4 studies · 290 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Adverse events Immunonutrition vs control | RR 1.32 [0.78, 2.24] | 4 studies · 294 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias |
Probiotics compared with control for acute pancreatitis
Population: patients with acute pancreatitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortality Probiotics vs control | RR 1.13 [0.66, 1.91] | 6 studies · 666 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias |
Systemic inflammatory response syndrome Probiotics vs control | RR 1.07 [0.9, 1.27] | 3 studies · 223 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias |
Organ failure Probiotics vs control | RR 0.84 [0.67, 1.04] | 5 studies · 644 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias |
Adverse events Probiotics vs control | RR 1.18 [0.33, 4.2] | 2 studies · 133 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Serious adverse events Probiotics vs control | RR 17.89 [1.05, 304.59] | 1 study · 298 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Immunonutrition with probiotics and fibres compared with control for acute pancreatitis
Population: patients with acute pancreatitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortality Immunonutrition with probiotics and fibres vs control | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 64 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
Systemic inflammatory response syndrome ‐ not reported Immunonutrition with probiotics and fibres vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Organ failure ‐ not reported Immunonutrition with probiotics and fibres vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events ‐ not reported Immunonutrition with probiotics and fibres vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Semi‐elemental enteral nutrition compared with control for acute pancreatitis
Population: patients with acute pancreatitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortality Semi‐elemental enteral nutrition vs control | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 35 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Systemic inflammatory response syndrome ‐ not reported Semi‐elemental enteral nutrition vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Organ failure ‐ not reported Semi‐elemental enteral nutrition vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events ‐ not reported Semi‐elemental enteral nutrition vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Fibre‐enriched enteral nutrition compared with control for acute pancreatitis
Population: patients with acute pancreatitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortality Fibre‐enriched enteral nutrition vs control | RR 0.23 [0.03, 1.84] | 2 studies · 103 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Systemic inflammatory response syndrome Fibre‐enriched enteral nutrition vs control | RR 1.03 [0.94, 1.13] | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Organ failure Fibre‐enriched enteral nutrition vs control | RR 0.86 [0.73, 1.01] | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Adverse events ‐ not reported Fibre‐enriched enteral nutrition vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Enteral nutrition compared with no intervention for acute pancreatitis
Population: patients with acute pancreatitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortality Enteral nutrition vs no intervention | RR 0.5 [0.29, 0.86] | 4 studies · 511 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Systemic inflammatory response syndrome Enteral nutrition vs no intervention | RR 0.94 [0.7, 1.26] | 1 study · 214 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Organ failure Enteral nutrition vs no intervention | RR 0.81 [0.52, 1.26] | 1 study · 214 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Adverse events Enteral nutrition vs no intervention | RR 9 [0.49, 165.14] | 1 study · 214 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |