Watters 1997.
Methods | Randomised clinical trial, Canada | |
Participants | 31 hospitalised adults undergoing oesophagectomy or pancreatoduodenectomy, at nutritional risk due to major abdominal surgery Male:Female = 22:6 (analysed participants only) Mean age = 62.5 Exclusion criteria: Metastases identified before surgery or at the time of surgery, diabetes mellitus,and corticosteroid use |
|
Interventions | Experimental group: Immediate postoperative enteral feeding (The enteral preparation provided 4.4 g protein and 445 kJ/100 mL) (n = 15)
Control group: No enteral feeding during the 1st 6 postoperative days (n = 16) Co‐intervention: PEG placement |
|
Outcomes | Hand‐grip strength, spirometry, serum biochemistry, urine biochemistry, mobility | |
Study dates | Not stated | |
Notes | We could obtain no contact information for the authors. | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | The sequence generation was computer‐generated. |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | The allocation was concealed in sealed envelopes. |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | The participants and personnel were unblinded. |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | The outcome assessment was unblinded. |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | There were above 5% dropouts, and the trial did not allow proper intention‐to‐treat methodology. |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | No protocol could be obtained, and all‐cause mortality was not reported. |
For‐profit bias | Unclear risk | It was unclear how the trial was funded. |
Other bias | Low risk | The trial appeared to be free of other components that could put it at risk of bias |