TABLE 1

Characteristics of Included Studies

Author (y), Total NStudy DesignCountry, SiteGender (M/F)Mean Wt, kg, Mean (SD) or Median (Range)Mean Age, Wk, Mean (SD) or Median (Range)Duration of Illness or Symptoms, d Mean (SD or Range)Open or Laparoscopic?Feeding Regimen ClassificationMINORS Assessment,a /24
Leahy and Fitzgerald (1982)20Prospective comparative trialIreland60/7NR(1.43–15)NRNREarly versus late14
N = 67
Wheeler et al (1990)14RCTUnited Kingdom (England)64/10Wt at admission: 3.89 (2.71–5.76)Age at admission: 5.7 (2–16)NROpenEarly versus lateN/A (see Table 2)
N = 74Gradual versus rapid
Turnock and Rangecroft (1991)12RCTUnited Kingdom (England)NRNRNRNRNREarly versus lateN/A (see Table 2)
N = 100
Georgeson et al (1993)4Retrospective comparative trialUnited States186/37Wt at admission: 3.9 (0.7)Age at diagnosis: 5.2 (2.5)Regimen A: 7.0 (6.8)NREarly versus late13
N = 223Regimen B: 10.3 (10.7)Gradual versus rapid
Regimen C: 6.8 (4.4)
Regimen D: 6.4 (4.9)
Carpenter et al (1999)18Retrospective comparative trialUnited States232/574.2 (0.9)5.8 (4.6)NRNRAd libitum versus structured14
N = 289
Gollin et al (2000)15Retrospective comparative trialUnited States64/17NR5.3 (2–12)Group 1: 8.3 (1–21)NRGradual versus rapid14
N = 81Group 2: 7.1 (1–28)
Group 3: 6.1 (1–28)
Lee et al (2001)2Retrospective comparative trialUnited Kingdom (Scotland)87/14Wt at presentation: 3.9 (2.1–6.0)Age at presentation: 5.1 (1.1–12.4)NRNREarly versus late12
N = 101
Garza et al (2002)17Prospective comparative trialUnited States28/8Wt at operation: 4.0 (0.9)Age at operation: 5 (1.7)NROpenAd libitum versus structured14
N = 36
Puapong et al (2002)16Prospective comparative trialUnited StatesNRWt at presentation: 4.0 (0.7)Age at presentation: 5.1 (2.0)Control: 6.2 (6.3); Ad libitum: 6.0 (4.2)OpenAd libitum versus structured15
N = 56
van der Bilt et al (2004)3Retrospective comparative trialNetherlands143/21Wt at surgery: 3.9 (0.7)Age at surgery: 5.1 (2.2)<4 h: 11 (10)LaparoscopicEarly versus late16
N = 164>4 h: 12 (10)Ad libitum versus structured
Adibe et al (2007)1Retrospective comparative trialUnited States183/44NR5.1 (0.2)NRLaparoscopicAd libitum versus structured14
N = 227
El-Gohary et al (2010)13Retrospective comparative trialIreland440/73NRAge at operation: 5.7 (0.3–27.7)10 (1–60)OpenEarly versus late12
N = 513
Adibe et al (2014)19RCTUnited States131/19Wt at presentation: 4.0 (1.0)Age at presentation: 5.67 (4.18)NRLaparoscopicAd libitum versus structuredN/A (see Table 2)
N = 150
Castellani et al (2014)9Retrospective comparative trialAustria36/7Wt at presentation: 3.674 (0.779)Age at presentation: 5.86 (2.43)NRLaparoscopicGradual versus rapid14
N = 43
  • F, female; M, male; N/A, not applicable; NR, not reported; RCT, randomized controlled trial.

  • a See Supplemental Table 4 to see how items within MINORS were scored for each study.