The enteral vs parenteral nutrition debate revisited.
Many trials and several meta-analyses have been devoted to comparing enteral with parenteral nutrition support. In this review, these studies are subjected to critical analysis with particular emphasis on their methodology and clinical relevance. Evidence is produced to suggest that the heterogeneous patient populations of the studies and the rigid approach taken to comparing different nutrition therapies inter alia render their conclusions highly questionable and of very doubtful clinical significance. An alternative approach to nutrition research is suggested in which strategies of nutrition support rather than fixed menus are compared. It is suggested that objective measures of intestinal function be evaluated more fully in patients requiring nonvolitional nutrition support, and these are briefly reviewed. In addition, a more scientific approach to evaluating the physiological effects of nutrition support, including chemical tagging and evaluation of muscle function, is recommended.
Thomson
Andrew
A
Gastroenterology and Hepatology Unit, The Canberra Hospital, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. andrew.thomson@act.gov.au
D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic; D004750:Enteral Nutrition / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D006801:Humans; D007422:Intestines / Q000502:physiology*; D009747:Nutritional Physiological Phenomena / Q000502:physiology*; D010288:Parenteral Nutrition / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards; D012106:Research / Q000458:organization & administration* / Q000592:standards; D016896:Treatment Outcome