OBJECTIVE: Medical nutrition therapy provides the opportunity to compensate for muscle wasting and immune response activation during stress and trauma. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the safety and effectiveness of early enteral nutrition (EEN) in adults with sepsis or septic shock. METHODS: The MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP tools were searched from inception until July 2023. Conference proceedings, the reference lists of included studies, and expert content were queried to identify additional publications. Two review authors completed the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment; disagreements were resolved through discussion. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRSs) comparing the administration of EEN with no or delayed enteral nutrition (DEE) in adult populations with sepsis or septic shock. RESULTS: Five RCTs (n = 442 participants) and ten NRSs (n = 3724 participants) were included. Low-certainty evidence from RCTs and NRSs suggests that patients receiving EEN could require fewer days of mechanical ventilation (MD −2.65; 95% CI, −4.44–0.86; and MD −2.94; 95% CI, −3.64–−2.23, respectively) and may show lower SOFA scores during follow-up (MD −1.64 points; 95% CI, −2.60–−0.68; and MD −1.08 points; 95% CI, −1.90–−0.26, respectively), albeit with an increased frequency of diarrhea episodes (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.115–4.34). Even though the patients with EEN show a lower in-hospital mortality rate both in RCTs (OR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.39–1.23) and NRSs (OR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69–1.13), this difference does not achieve statistical significance. There were no apparent differences for other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality evidence suggests that EEN may be a safe and effective intervention for the management of critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock.

Background Retained placenta affects 0.5% to 3% of women following delivery and it is a major cause of maternal death due to postpartum haemorrhage. Usually, retained placenta has been managed by manual removal or curettage under anaesthesia, which may be associated with haemorrhage, infection and uterine perforation. Medical management to facilitate the delivery of the retained placenta could be a safe alternative avoiding surgical intervention. Objectives To assess the effectiveness and safety of prostaglandins for the management of retained placenta. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (1 December 2013), LILACS (1982 to 1 December 2013), SciELO (1998 to 1 December 2013), Web of Science (2001 to 1 December 2013), openSIGLE (1997 to 1 December 2013), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (1 December 2013) and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (1 December 2013). We also contacted authors of included studies and reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria Randomised controlled clinical trials comparing the use of prostaglandins (or prostaglandin analogues) with placebo, expectant management, tocolytic drugs, any other prostaglandins or surgical interventions for the management of retained placenta after vaginal delivery of singleton live infants of 20 or more weeks of gestation. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed trial quality. Two review authors independently extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. Any disagreements were resolved through consensus or consultation with a third review author when required. Authors of the included studies were contacted for additional information. Main results We included three trials, involving 244 women. The studies were considered to be at high risk of bias. The prostaglandins used were PG E2 analogue (sulprostone) in 50 participants and PG E1 analogue (misoprostol) in 194 participants at a dose of 250 mcg and 800 mcg respectively. The prostaglandins compared with placebo, were not superior in reducing the rate of manual removal of placenta (average risk ratio (RR) 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.27), severe postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15), need for blood transfusion (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.22), mean blood loss (mean difference (MD) ‐205.26 mL; 95% CI ‐536.31 to 125.79, random‐effects) and the mean time from injection to placental removal (MD ‐7.00 minutes; 95% CI ‐21.20 to 7.20). Side‐effects were no different between groups (vomiting, headache, pain and nausea between injection and discharge from the labour ward), with the exception of shivering, which was more frequent in women receiving prostaglandins (RR 10.00; 95% CI 1.40 to 71.49). We did not obtain any data for the primary outcomes of maternal mortality and the need to add another therapeutic uterotonic. Authors' conclusions Currently there is limited, very low‐quality evidence relating to the effectiveness and the safety using prostaglandins for the management of retained placenta. Use of prostaglandins resulted in less need for manual removal of placenta, severe postpartum haemorrhage and blood transfusion but none of the differences reached statistical significance. Much larger, adequately powered studies are needed to confirm that these clinically important beneficial effects are not just chance findings. Similarly, no differences were detected between prostaglandins and placebo in mean blood loss or the mean time from injection to placental removal (minutes) or side‐effects (vomiting, headache, pain and nausea between injection and discharge from the labour ward) except for 'shivering' which was more frequent in women who received prostaglandin. The included studies were of poor quality and there is little confidence in the effect estimates; the true effect is likely to be substantially different. We can not make any recommendations about changes to clinical practice. More high‐quality research in this area is needed.

Objetivo: Generar recomendaciones basadas en la evidencia, para la prevención primaria y secundaria, el tratamiento de las lesiones preneoplásicas y el diagnóstico temprano del cáncer gástrico en población adulta, con el propósito de reducir la carga de la enfermedad. Materiales y métodos: El grupo desarrollador estuvo integrado por profesionales de la salud y tomadores decisiones. Se construyeron preguntas clínicas contestables y se realizó la graduación de los desenlaces. Se elaboró la busqueda de la información en MEDLINE; EMBASE y CENTRAL, siendo actualizada el 18 de octubre de 2018. La pesquisa también abarcó otras fuentes de información como la Revista Colombiana de Gastroenterología y la lectura en “bola de nieve” de las referencias incluidas. Se contactó expertos en la materia con el objeto de identificar estudios relevantes no publicados. Para la construcción de las recomendaciones, se realizó un consenso acorde a los lineamientos propuestos por la metodología GRADE, sopesando a los beneficios, los efectos adversos derivados de la intervención, las preferencias de los pacientes y el potencial impacto de las intervenciones sobre los costos. Resultados: Se presenta la versión corta de la “Guía de práctica clínica para la prevención primaria, secundaria y diagnóstico temprano de cáncer gástrico” junto su evidencia de soporte y respectivas recomendaciones. Conclusiones: Como recomendación central para la implementación se recomienda erradicar la infección por H. pylori en los pacientes con o sin factores de riesgo como estrategia de prevención de las condiciones precursoras de cáncer gástrico. La Guía deberá actualizarse en tres años.