Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2024
Effectiveness of nutritional support for clinical outcomes in gastric cancer patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhang Juping, Kong Qian, Zhang Jibo, Guo Jun
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer (GC) is a leading cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality globally. This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the impact of nutritional interventions on clinical outcomes in GC patients.
METHODS: Comprehensive search was conducted across four medical databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined nutritional interventions in GC patients. The outcomes assessed included hospitalization duration, nutritional status, immune function, and complications.
RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included. Enteral nutrition (EN) significantly reduce hospital stay duration compared to no nutritional intervention (SMD = -1.22, 95% CI [-1.72, -0.73], P < 0.001) and parenteral nutrition (PN) (SMD = -1.30, 95% CI [-1.78, -0.82], P < 0.001), but showed no significant difference compared to immunonutrition (IN). EN also improved nutritional status, indicated by higher albumin prealbumin levels, and improved immune function by elevating CD4+ levels (SMD = 1.09, 95% CI [0.61, 1.57], P < 0.001). However, IN showed superior effects on immunoglobulin levels (IgG and IgM). No significant differences were observed in complication rates among EN, IN, and PN interventions.
CONCLUSION: Nutritional support, particularly EN and IN, can significantly improve hospitalization outcomes, nutritional status, and immune function. Customizing interventions according to patient requirements can optimize therapeutic outcomes, highlighting the need for further research in this area.
METHODS: Comprehensive search was conducted across four medical databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined nutritional interventions in GC patients. The outcomes assessed included hospitalization duration, nutritional status, immune function, and complications.
RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included. Enteral nutrition (EN) significantly reduce hospital stay duration compared to no nutritional intervention (SMD = -1.22, 95% CI [-1.72, -0.73], P < 0.001) and parenteral nutrition (PN) (SMD = -1.30, 95% CI [-1.78, -0.82], P < 0.001), but showed no significant difference compared to immunonutrition (IN). EN also improved nutritional status, indicated by higher albumin prealbumin levels, and improved immune function by elevating CD4+ levels (SMD = 1.09, 95% CI [0.61, 1.57], P < 0.001). However, IN showed superior effects on immunoglobulin levels (IgG and IgM). No significant differences were observed in complication rates among EN, IN, and PN interventions.
CONCLUSION: Nutritional support, particularly EN and IN, can significantly improve hospitalization outcomes, nutritional status, and immune function. Customizing interventions according to patient requirements can optimize therapeutic outcomes, highlighting the need for further research in this area.