↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Chewing gum for postoperative recovery of gastrointestinal function

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
124 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
295 Mendeley
Title
Chewing gum for postoperative recovery of gastrointestinal function
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD006506.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Short, Vaneesha, Herbert, Georgia, Perry, Rachel, Atkinson, Charlotte, Ness, Andrew R, Penfold, Christopher, Thomas, Steven, Andersen, Henning Keinke, Lewis, Stephen J

Abstract

Ileus commonly occurs after abdominal surgery, and is associated with complications and increased length of hospital stay (LOHS). Onset of ileus is considered to be multifactorial, and a variety of preventative methods have been investigated. Chewing gum (CG) is hypothesised to reduce postoperative ileus by stimulating early recovery of gastrointestinal (GI) function, through cephalo-vagal stimulation. There is no comprehensive review of this intervention in abdominal surgery. To examine whether chewing gum after surgery hastens the return of gastrointestinal function. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via Ovid), MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO) and ISI Web of Science (June 2014). We hand-searched reference lists of identified studies and previous reviews and systematic reviews, and contacted CG companies to ask for information on any studies using their products. We identified proposed and ongoing studies from clinicaltrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and metaRegister of Controlled Trials. We included completed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that used postoperative CG as an intervention compared to a control group. Two authors independently collected data and assessed study quality using an adapted Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) tool, and resolved disagreements by discussion. We assessed overall quality of evidence for each outcome using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Studies were split into subgroups: colorectal surgery (CRS), caesarean section (CS) and other surgery (OS). We assessed the effect of CG on time to first flatus (TFF), time to bowel movement (TBM), LOHS and time to bowel sounds (TBS) through meta-analyses using a random-effects model. We investigated the influence of study quality, reviewers' methodological estimations and use of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programmes using sensitivity analyses. We used meta-regression to explore if surgical site or ROB scores predicted the extent of the effect estimate of the intervention on continuous outcomes. We reported frequency of complications, and descriptions of tolerability of gum and cost. We identified 81 studies that recruited 9072 participants for inclusion in our review. We categorised many studies at high or unclear risk of the bias' assessed. There was statistical evidence that use of CG reduced TFF [overall reduction of 10.4 hours (95% CI: -11.9, -8.9): 12.5 hours (95% CI: -17.2, -7.8) in CRS, 7.9 hours (95% CI: -10.0, -5.8) in CS, 10.6 hours (95% CI: -12.7, -8.5) in OS]. There was also statistical evidence that use of CG reduced TBM [overall reduction of 12.7 hours (95% CI: -14.5, -10.9): 18.1 hours (95% CI: -25.3, -10.9) in CRS, 9.1 hours (95% CI: -11.4, -6.7) in CS, 12.3 hours (95% CI: -14.9, -9.7) in OS]. There was statistical evidence that use of CG slightly reduced LOHS [overall reduction of 0.7 days (95% CI: -0.8, -0.5): 1.0 days in CRS (95% CI: -1.6, -0.4), 0.2 days (95% CI: -0.3, -0.1) in CS, 0.8 days (95% CI: -1.1, -0.5) in OS]. There was statistical evidence that use of CG slightly reduced TBS [overall reduction of 5.0 hours (95% CI: -6.4, -3.7): 3.21 hours (95% CI: -7.0, 0.6) in CRS, 4.4 hours (95% CI: -5.9, -2.8) in CS, 6.3 hours (95% CI: -8.7, -3.8) in OS]. Effect sizes were largest in CRS and smallest in CS. There was statistical evidence of heterogeneity in all analyses other than TBS in CRS.There was little difference in mortality, infection risk and readmission rate between the groups. Some studies reported reduced nausea and vomiting and other complications in the intervention group. CG was generally well-tolerated by participants. There was little difference in cost between the groups in the two studies reporting this outcome.Sensitivity analyses by quality of studies and robustness of review estimates revealed no clinically important differences in effect estimates. Sensitivity analysis of ERAS studies showed a smaller effect size on TFF, larger effect size on TBM, and no difference between groups for LOHS.Meta-regression analyses indicated that surgical site is associated with the extent of the effect size on LOHS (all surgical subgroups), and TFF and TBM (CS and CRS subgroups only). There was no evidence that ROB score predicted the extent of the effect size on any outcome. Neither variable explained the identified heterogeneity between studies. This review identified some evidence for the benefit of postoperative CG in improving recovery of GI function. However, the research to date has primarily focussed on CS and CRS, and largely consisted of small, poor quality trials. Many components of the ERAS programme also target ileus, therefore the benefit of CG alongside ERAS may be reduced, as we observed in this review. Therefore larger, better quality RCTS in an ERAS setting in wider surgical disciplines would be needed to improve the evidence base for use of CG after surgery.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 295 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 288 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 61 21%
Student > Bachelor 48 16%
Researcher 34 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 8%
Other 20 7%
Other 64 22%
Unknown 44 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 135 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 42 14%
Psychology 12 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 3%
Social Sciences 10 3%
Other 29 10%
Unknown 57 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,466,464
of 17,950,532 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,647
of 11,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,493
of 242,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#96
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,950,532 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,786 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 242,323 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.