Copyright ©The Author(s) 2023.
World J Gastrointest Surg. May 27, 2023; 15(5): 953-964
Published online May 27, 2023. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v15.i5.953
Table 1 Basic characteristics, patient characteristics, and outcome indicators of the included literatures
Intention-to-treat total
Sample (E/D)
Surgery type
Age (yr)       
Nutrition support mode
Sun et al[11]2017A prospective, randomized, single-blinded, controlled study10753/54Major abdominal surgery56 ± 10Oral feedinge, f
Pragatheeswarane et al[12]2014A randomized controlled study12060/60Elective open bowel surgeries46.5 ± 17.2Oral feedingd, e, f
Dag et al[13]2011A randomized controlled study19999/100Elective open colorectal cancer surgery62 (35-85)Oral feedingd, e, f
Fujii et al[14]2014A controlled study12062/58Elective colorectal resection surgery67.4 ± 11.7Oral feedinga, d, e, f
Liao et al[15]2020A randomized controlled study4121/20Esophageal carcinoma surgery57.2 ± 8.2Enteral nutritiond, f
Mi et al[16]2012A randomized controlled study6030/30Gastrectomy57.2 ± 9.5Oral feedinga, b, d, f
Mahmoodzadeh et al[17]2015A randomized controlled study10954/55Gastrointestinal surgeries64.2 ± 8.2Oral feedingd, f
Wang et al[18]2005A retrospective comparative study454227/227Colorectal cancer resection surgery63.5 ± 11.3Enteral nutritiond, e, f
Qiu et al[19]2020A retrospective comparative study2613/13Severe acute pancreatitis treatment33.4 ± 5.7Enteral nutritiona, c, d
Wang et al[20]2015A randomized controlled study188101/87Esophagectomy59.5 ± 8.4Enteral nutritiona, c, d, e, f
Klappenbach et al[21]2013A randomized controlled study295148/147Abdominal elective surgery37.3 ± 18.1Oral feedingd, e, f
Li et al[22]2015A randomized controlled study300150/150Gastric cancer surgery59.2 ± 9.7Enteral nutritiona, b, d, f
Zou et al[23]2014A retrospective comparative study9346/47Severe acute pancreatitis treatment46.5 (34.6-59.3)Enteral nutritiona, d, f
Barlow et al[24]2011A randomized controlled study12164/57Upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery64.0 ± 15.0Eternal feedingf
Table 2 Risk of bias and quality assessment based on Cochrane Risk of Bias V2.0
Randomization Process
Bias from defined interventions
Data missing bias
Data measurement offset
Optional reporting
Overall bias
Weight (%)
Sun et al[11]LowLowLowSome concernsLowSome concerns8
Sun et al[11]LowLowLowLowLowLow8
Pragatheeswarane et al[12]LowLowLowLowLowLow8
Dag et al[13]LowLowLowLowLowLow8
Fujii et al[14]LowLowLowLowLowLow8
Liao et al[15]LowLowLowSome concernsLowSome concerns8
Mi et al[16]LowLowLowLowLowSome concerns8
Mahmoodzadeh et al[17]LowSome concernsLowSome concernsLowSome concerns8
Wang et al[18]LowSome concernsLowSome concernsLowSome concerns8
Qiu et al[19]LowLowLowLowLowLow8
Wang et al[20]LowLowLowLowLowLow8
Klappenbach et al[21]LowLowLowLowLowLow8
Li et al[22]LowSome concernsLowLowLowSome concerns8
Zou et al[23]LowLowLowLowLowLow8
Barlow et al[24]LowSome concernsLowSome concernsLowSome concerns8
Klappenbach et al[21]LowLowLowLowLowLow8
Li et al[22]LowLowLowLowLowLow8
Zou et al[23]LowSome concernsLowLowLowSome concerns8
Barlow et al[24]LowLowLowLowLowLow8
Klappenbach et al[21]LowLowLowLowLowLow8
Table 3 Meta-analysis results of other nutritional indicators
Literature number
Analysis mode
P value
Effect size
Pooling value
Z, P value
Prealbumin2Fixed effect mode0.22mean difference12.4776 (9.1231, 15.8320)7.29, < 0.0001
Serum total protein2Random effect mode0.0002mean difference5.2401 (-5.1833, 15.6635)0.99, 0.3245