Enteral versus parenteral nutrition after gastrointestinal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials / 中华外科杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To compare the different prognosis between enteral nutrition (EN) and parenteral nutrition (PN) in patients after gastrointestinal surgery (GIS), and to investigate a reasonable regimen of enteral nutrition (EN) after GIS.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on EN/PN after GIS from 1970 to 2008 retrieved from the data bank of Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were analyzed. Evaluation endpoints were anastomotic dehiscence, infection (catheter sepsis, wound infection, pneumonia, intra-abdominal abscess and urinary tract infection), vomiting and abdominal distention, other complications, length of hospital stay and mortality rate.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Twenty-three RCTs including 2784 patients met the entering criteria. Compared with PN, EN was beneficial in the reduction of anastomotic dehiscence (RR = 0.67, 95%CI: 0.50 - 0.91; P = 0.010), infections (RR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.64 - 0.81; P < 0.001), other complication (RR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.73 - 0.92; P < 0.001) and duration of hospital stay (weighted mean difference: -3.60; 95%CI: -3.88 - -3.32; P < 0.001). But the risk of vomiting was increased among patients with EN (RR = 1.39, 95%CI: 1.21 - 1.59; P < 0.001), and there was no significant differences in mortalities between the two groups (P = 0.400).</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>There is no advantage in treating patients 'nil by mouth' after gastrointestinal surgery. It indicated that early commencement of enteral feeding is beneficial.</p>

Evaluation of sequest result filter-Xcorr and Unified Score / 中国医学科学杂志(英文版)

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To estimate the effect of two simple filters, two or more positive peptide filter and Unified Score filter on the true positive rate of protein and peptide.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Twenty-two LC-MS/MS datasets were from 18 known protein mixture. Two or more positive peptide filter and Unified Score filter were applied to the 22 datasets. The filters effect was evaluated according to the true positive rate of protein and peptide for each filter.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The positive rates of protein and peptide from two or more peptide filter raised from 56.49% to 92.86%-99.12% (for protein) and from 90.67% to 97.74%-99.62% (for peptide), but many positive proteins were filtered out. The positive rates of protein and peptide from Unified Score (ThermoFinnigan value 2400) were only about 35.51% and 82.99%, but after adjusted the value (3900) according to the number of false positive peptide, those positive rate raised to 63.61% (for protein) and 91.97% (for peptide).</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>Two or more peptides requirement could significantly decrease false positive rate, but it also may filter out many true positive proteins especially low molecular weight and less abundant proteins. Unified Score may be a better filter than Xcorr and DeltaCn combination and the value of 3900 is found to be more suitable for this particular datasets.</p>