Application of dietary fiber in clinical enteral nutrition: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Table 1 Characteristics of RCTs about EN supplemented with DF

	Number of patients	Methodological	Patients	Diarrhea	Infection	Days of hospital
	(intervention/control)	quality				stay (mean±SD)
Schultz 2000	44(22/22)	C: A J: 5	Critically ill	6/7	NR	NR
Dobb 1990	91(45/46)	C: B J: 4	Critically ill	16/13	NR	NR
Spapen 2001	25(13/12)	C: A J: 3	Sepsis	6/11	NR	NR
Rayes 2002	64(32/32)	C: B J: 2	Liver transplantation	NR	11/15	36 ± 2.7/39 ± 0.5
Rayes 2002(2)	60(30/30)	C: B J: 2	Abdominal surgery	NR	3/9	15 ± 7.4/16 ± 5.5
Homann 1994	100(50/50)	C: B J: 2	Inpatients	6/15	NR	NR
Khalil 1998	16(8/8)	C: B J: 2	Postoperative	1/2	NR	NR

C = concealment of allocation; J = Jadad score; NR = not reported.

Table 2 Effect of EN with DF on diarrhea

Study	Favors DF-	Favors DF-	Weight	OR
	supplement n/N	free n/N	%	(95%CI fixed)
Dobb 1990	16/45	13/46	24	1.40 [0.58,3.40]
Homann 1994	6/50	15/50	38.3	0.32 [0.11,0.91]
Khalil 1998	1/8	2/8	5.1	0.43 [0.03,5.99]
Schultz 2000	6/22	7/22	14.8	0.80 [0.22,2.94]
Spapen 2001	6/13	11/12	17.9	0.08 [0.01,0.79]
Total(95%CI)	35/138	48/138	100	0.61 [0.36,1.05]

Test for heterogeneity chi-square = 8.13, df = 4, P = 0.087; Test for overall effect z = -1.79, P = 0.07.

Table 3 Sensitivity-analysis of effects of EN with DF on diarrhea

Study	Favors DF-supplement n/N	Favors DF-freen/N	Weight%	OR(95%CI fixed)
Dobb 1990	16/45	13/46	24	1.40 [0.58,3.40]
Schultz 2000	6/22	7/22	14.8	0.80 [0.22,2.94]
Spapen 2001	6/13	11/12	17.9	0.08 [0.01,0.79]
Total(95%CI)	28/80	31/80	100	0.83 [0.43,1.60]

Test for heterogeneity χ² = 5.34, df = 2, P = 0.069, Test for overall effect z = -0.56, P = 0.6.