Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 4, 2026

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
Published on: September 20, 2019
Enteral compared with parenteral nutrition: a meta-analysis
C L Braunschweig1, P Levy, P M Sheean
1Department of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Illinois at Chicago, 60612, USA. braunsch@uic.edu
Background:
The difference in outcomes in patients is unclear when 2 types of enteral nutrition, ie, tube feeding and conventional oral diets with intravenous dextrose (standard care), are compared with parenteral nutrition.
Objective:
We reviewed systematically and aggregated statistically the results of prospective randomized clinical trials (PRCTs) to examine the relations among the nutrition interventions, complications, and mortality rates.
Design:
We conducted a MEDLINE search for PRCTs comparing the effects of enteral and parenteral nutrition in adults. Two different people abstracted data for the method and outcomes separately. We used fixed-effects meta-analysis technique to combine the relative risks (RRs) of the outcomes of infection, nutrition support complications, other complications, and mortality.
Results:
Twenty-seven studies in 1828 patients met the study criteria. Aggregated results showed a significantly lower RR of infection with tube feeding (0.64; 95% CI: 0.54, 0.76) and standard care (0.77; 95% CI: 0.65, 0.91). A priori hypotheses showed a lower RR of infection with tube feeding than with parenteral nutrition, regardless of nutritional status, presence of cancer, year of study publication, or quality of the study method. In studies in which participants had high rates of protein-energy malnutrition, there was a significantly higher risk of mortality (3.0; 95% CI: 10.9, 8.56) and a trend toward a higher risk of infection with standard care than with parenteral nutrition (1.17; 95% CI: 0.88, 1.56).
Conclusions:
Tube feeding and standard care are associated with a lower risk of infection than is parenteral nutrition; however, mortality is higher and the risk of infection tends to be higher with standard care than with parenteral nutrition in malnourished populations.
Related Concept Videos
Enteral Nutrition II: Nasointestinal and Gastrostomy Feeding
Nasointestinal Feeding
Nasointestinal feeding involves placing a tube through...
Parentral Nutrition: Centeral and Peripheral Parental Nutrition
PN can be administered through two primary routes:
1. Central Parenteral Nutrition (CPN):
CPN involves delivering a high concentration of nutrients through a large vein. This is typically achieved using a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) or,...
Enteral Nutrition I: Orogastric and Nasogastric Feeding
Orogastric (OG) and nasogastric (NG) feeding are two standard methods used for enteral nutrition. Enteral nutrition is often preferred over...
Bioavailability Study Design: Absolute Versus Relative Bioavailability
Routes of Drug Administration: Parenteral
The intravenous route (IV) of drug administration can be further categorized into two types. The bolus injection administers the entire dose rapidly, while an intravenous infusion slowly delivers smaller doses steadily.
The IV route is often...
Drug Delivery: Parenteral Route
There are three primary parenteral routes: intravenous (IV), intramuscular (IM), and subcutaneous (SC). The IV route introduces the drug directly into the bloodstream, ensuring immediate action. The IM route...