Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Study flow diagram.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Comparison 1 Early versus delayed oral fluids and food after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery, Outcome 1 Postoperative ileus.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Early versus delayed oral fluids and food after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery, Outcome 1 Postoperative ileus.

Comparison 1 Early versus delayed oral fluids and food after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery, Outcome 2 Time intervals (fixed‐effect model) [days].
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Early versus delayed oral fluids and food after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery, Outcome 2 Time intervals (fixed‐effect model) [days].

Comparison 1 Early versus delayed oral fluids and food after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery, Outcome 3 Other major postoperative complications.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Early versus delayed oral fluids and food after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery, Outcome 3 Other major postoperative complications.

Comparison 1 Early versus delayed oral fluids and food after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery, Outcome 4 Satisfaction visual analog scale [mm].
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Early versus delayed oral fluids and food after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery, Outcome 4 Satisfaction visual analog scale [mm].

Comparison 1 Early versus delayed oral fluids and food after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery, Outcome 5 Nausea and/or vomiting (random‐effects model).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Early versus delayed oral fluids and food after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery, Outcome 5 Nausea and/or vomiting (random‐effects model).

Comparison 1 Early versus delayed oral fluids and food after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery, Outcome 6 Time to the presence of bowel sound (random‐effects model) [days].
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Early versus delayed oral fluids and food after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery, Outcome 6 Time to the presence of bowel sound (random‐effects model) [days].

Comparison 1 Early versus delayed oral fluids and food after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery, Outcome 7 Time to the first solid diet (random‐effects model) [days].
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Early versus delayed oral fluids and food after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery, Outcome 7 Time to the first solid diet (random‐effects model) [days].

Comparison 1 Early versus delayed oral fluids and food after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery, Outcome 8 Hospital stay (random‐effects model) [days].
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Early versus delayed oral fluids and food after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery, Outcome 8 Hospital stay (random‐effects model) [days].

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Early oral feeding compared to delayed oral feeding for women who had major abdominal gynaecologic surgery

Early oral feeding compared to delayed oral feeding for women who had major abdominal gynaecologic surgery

Patient or population: Women who had major abdominal gynaecologic surgery
Settings: University hospital/cancer centre
Intervention: Early oral feeding
Comparison: Delayed (traditional) oral feeding

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Delayed oral feeding

Early oral feeding

Postoperative ileus

77 per 1000

36 per 1000
(13 to 99)

RR 0.47
(0.17 to 1.29)

279
(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1

Nausea or vomiting or both

352 per 1000

363 per 1000
(225 to 588)

RR 1.03
(0.64 to 1.67)

484
(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate2

Random effects model, deployed because of substantial heterogeneity between studies (I2> 50%)

Time to bowel sounds [days]

The mean time to the presence of bowel sound [days] in the intervention groups was
0.32 lower
(0.61 to 0.03 lower)

338
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate3

Random effects model, deployed because of substantial heterogeneity between studies (I2> 50%)

Time to the passage of flatus [days]

The mean time to the passage of flatus [days] in the intervention groups was
0.21 lower
(0.4 to 0.01 lower)

444
(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

Time to the first solid diet [days]

The mean time to the first solid diet [days] in the intervention groups was
1.47 lower
(2.26 to 0.68 lower)

301
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate3

Random effects model, deployed because of substantial heterogeneity between studies (I2> 50%)

Time to first passage of stool [days]

The mean time to first passage of stool [days] in the intervention groups was
0.25 lower
(0.58 lower to 0.09 higher)

249
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate3

Hospital stay [days]

The mean hospital stay [days] in the intervention groups was
0.92 lower
(1.53 to 0.31 lower)

484
(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate4

Random effects model, deployed because of substantial heterogeneity between studies (I2> 50%)

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 For the three studies contributing data, all were at high risk of performance bias, two were at unclear risk of detection bias, and one was at high risk of selection bias (no allocation concealment).
2 For the four studies contributing data, all were at high risk of performance bias and unclear risk of detection bias.
3 This outcome may be influenced by the high risk of performance bias in the two studies that contributed data.

4 This outcome may be influenced by the high risk of performance bias in all studies that provided data.

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Early oral feeding compared to delayed oral feeding for women who had major abdominal gynaecologic surgery
Comparison 1. Early versus delayed oral fluids and food after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Postoperative ileus Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Postoperative ileus

3

279

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.47 [0.17, 1.29]

1.2 Nausea and/or vomiting (fixed‐effect model)

4

484

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.10 [0.88, 1.38]

1.3 Nausea

1

195

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.79 [1.19, 2.71]

1.4 Vomiting

2

301

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.37, 2.00]

1.5 Abdominal distension

2

301

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.07 [0.77, 1.47]

1.6 Postoperative placement of nasogastric tube

1

195

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.13, 1.80]

2 Time intervals (fixed‐effect model) [days] Show forest plot

4

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Time to the presence of bowel sound (fixed‐effect model) [days]

2

338

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.29 [‐0.48, ‐0.11]

2.2 Time to the passage of flatus [days]

3

444

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.21 [‐0.40, ‐0.01]

2.3 Time to the first solid diet (fixed‐effect model) [days]

2

301

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.19 [‐1.34, ‐1.05]

2.4 Time to the first passage of stool [days]

2

249

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.25 [‐0.58, 0.09]

2.5 Hospital stay (fixed‐effect model) [days]

4

484

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.59 [‐0.83, ‐0.35]

3 Other major postoperative complications Show forest plot

4

1286

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.63, 1.01]

3.1 Febrile morbidity

1

195

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.76, 1.27]

3.2 Infectious complications

2

183

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.20 [0.05, 0.73]

3.3 Wound complications

4

474

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.50, 1.35]

3.4 Pneumonia

3

434

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.07, 1.73]

4 Satisfaction visual analog scale [mm] Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5 Nausea and/or vomiting (random‐effects model) Show forest plot

4

484

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.64, 1.67]

6 Time to the presence of bowel sound (random‐effects model) [days] Show forest plot

2

338

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.32 [‐0.61, ‐0.03]

7 Time to the first solid diet (random‐effects model) [days] Show forest plot

2

301

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.47 [‐2.26, ‐0.68]

8 Hospital stay (random‐effects model) [days] Show forest plot

4

484

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.92 [‐1.53, ‐0.31]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Early versus delayed oral fluids and food after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery