Share this article on:

Enteral Nutrition and Corticosteroids in the Treatment of Acute Crohn's Disease in Children

Heuschkel, Robert B; Menache, Caroline C*; Megerian, Thomas J.*; Baird, Alison E*

Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition: July 2000 - Volume 31 - Issue 1 - p 8–15
Original Articles

Background: The optimal treatment of acute Crohn's disease in children remains controversial. In adults, steroid therapy has been shown to be superior to exclusive enteral nutrition. However, enteral nutrition is effective at inducing a remission in many children with acute Crohn's disease. Steroid usage in children has been associated with adverse side effects, particularly with delayed growth and pubertal development.

Methods: Randomized clinical trials comparing exclusive enteral nutrition with corticosteroids were identified. Two independent reviewers extracted data from selected studies. Studies were assessed for heterogeneity and relative risks for remission induction with enteral nutrition were obtained. Sensitivity analyses were performed in partially randomized studies. Estimates were made of the number of studies needed to overturn the current result. Other outcome measures were qualitatively assessed.

Results: In five randomized clinical trials comprising 147 patients, enteral nutrition was as effective as corticosteroids at inducing a remission (RR = 0.95 [95% confidence interval 0.67, 1.34]). Addition of two further nonrandomized trials did not significantly alter the result. A minimum of 10 further studies, equal in size and outcome to the largest reported pediatric trial to date (n = 68, RR = 0.84), would be required to demonstrate a significant benefit of steroid therapy over enteral nutrition.

Conclusions: There is no difference in efficacy between enteral nutrition and corticosteroid therapy in the treatment of acute Crohn's disease in children. Improved growth and development, without the side effects of steroid therapy, make enteral nutrition a better choice for first-line therapy in children with active Crohn's disease.

Combined Program in Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Children's Hospital; and

*Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

Received October 28, 1999; accepted December 21, 1999.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Robert B. Heuschkel, Division of Gastroenterology, Hunnewell Building, Ground Floor, Children's Hospital, 300 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, U.S.A.

This article accompanies an editorial. Please see Griffiths AM. Enteral nutrition: the neglected primary therapy of active Crohn's disease. J Pediatr Gastroentero Nutr 2000;31:3–5.

The optimal treatment of active Crohn's disease in children remains disputed. Steroid treatment has been shown to be superior to exclusive enteral nutrition in several meta-analyses of adult studies (1–3), although individual centers have reported both short and long-term benefits of exclusive dietary treatment.

Steroid usage in children has been associated with a wide range of adverse effects in children, in particular on bone mineralization (4,5) and on growth and development (6–8). Steroids are an even less attractive first-line therapy, because children with newly diagnosed Crohn's disease already have significantly low bone mineral density (9) and growth delay (10) at diagnosis.

Thus far, it has not been possible to conduct large enough trials to clarify the benefits or otherwise of a nutritional approach. After successes in small observational studies (11,12), placebo-controlled trials of enteral nutrition were never conducted in the pediatric population and are no longer ethically justified. Studies of the natural history of Crohn's disease show a spontaneous remission occurring in between 18% and 42% of cases within 3 to 4 months, whereas a response to exclusive enteral nutrition is reported between in 53% and 80% of cases (1). Nutritional treatment alone therefore has a significant therapeutic effect.

The efficacy of enteral nutrition in active Crohn's disease is therefore best assessed by its comparison with corticosteroid therapy. The latter, with or without the addition of aminosalicylate anti-inflammatory medication, is the otherwise widely accepted conventional treatment.

Previous meta-analyses have focused predominantly on the induction of remission in adults. No comment has been made on the sequelae of steroid treatment or the benefits of dietary treatment in nutritionally and growth-compromised children. The purpose of the current study was to re-examine this issue on behalf of the pediatric population with Crohn's disease. Although the data in this field remain limited, in this analysis we sought to systematically analyze all available information and to define the current state of the evidence.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Literature Search

A search of the literature was performed in July 1999 using a MEDLINE search through OVID, Grateful Med, and PubMed from 1966 through July 1999. A search of the Science Citation Index for the first pediatric clinical trial of enteral nutrition versus steroids (13) was also performed. In addition, manual searching for abstracts (1990–1999) was performed from ESPGHAN, NASPGN, and the American Gastroenterology Association (AGA). The reference lists of review articles (14–17) and meta-analyses (1–3) were also scanned for relevant studies. Recent book chapters (18–21) and their bibliographies were reviewed. Contact was made with leaders in the field to ensure no studies had been overlooked. Authors were contacted when necessary to clarify remission criteria and randomization methods.

The search strategy terms included Crohn's disease, enteral nutrition, child (less than 18 years), clinical trial, diet, food (formulated), steroids, and aminosalicylic acids. There were no restrictions on publication type or language to minimize publication bias.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Inclusion Criteria

The following inclusion criteria were used: pediatric studies (participants aged <18 years); clinical trials (randomized, semirandomized [consecutive allocation], and nonrandomized [equal disease activity and distribution at treatment onset]); minimum 3-week treatment period; treatment of acute Crohn's disease (newly diagnosed or relapsed); and objective assessment of remission with percentage remission reported for each treatment group.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Exclusion Criteria

The following studies were excluded: observational studies and case series, nutritional supplement studies, studies examining use of enteral nutrition to prolong remission, adult studies that included pediatric patients, and studies in which patients were randomized more than once. Preliminary reports that were later published in full were excluded. The excluded studies (11,12,22–31) and reasons for their exclusion are shown in Table 1.



Back to Top | Article Outline

Data Extraction

Data, previously agreed to be relevant by all authors, were extracted from each article by two independent observers. Findings were compared and consensus reached among all authors by rereading the manuscripts. All data were extracted on an intention-to-treat basis.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Statistical Analyses

Steroid therapy induces a remission in 70% to 80% of adults with acute Crohn's disease (32,33), a figure similar to that reported in the pediatric literature. To detect a 20% difference between treatment effects, with a power of 0.8 and an [alpha] error of 0.05, requires a minimum of 91 patients per group. If enteral nutrition were any less effective at inducing a remission than approximately 50%, any extra benefits of a dietary therapy may be lost if a clinical remission was achieved in only one in two children. One hundred ninety-three children were included in the overall meta-analysis of seven studies.

Fixed and random effects models (34–36) were used to generate a pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). A commercially available statistics program (STATA 6 Intercool; College Station, TX, U.S.A.) was used throughout. Unlike in previous meta-analyses (1–3) our analysis calculated RRs, not odds ratios (ORs), because several pediatric studies had 100% remission rates, making an OR calculation impossible.

Reported RRs and CIs are presented graphically as horizontal lines. In both figures, only if the 95% CI line does not cross the vertical equivalence line (RR = 1.0) is a statistically significant treatment effect indicated. Values of heterogeneity (Cochrane Q statistic) with associated P values were computed (P < 0.05, for significant heterogeneity). A Galbraith plot was used to visually detect intertrial heterogeneity.

Pooled RR estimates were obtained for the five randomized clinical trials (13,37–40). Further sensitivity analysis was then performed by addition of a partially randomized trial (41) and a nonrandomized trial (42).

We also calculated the number of studies required for a statistically significant result in favor of steroid therapy—that is, achieving an RR with CI below 1.0.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Of 99 citations retrieved, 19 articles were reviewed in full. Of these articles, five were randomized controlled trials involving 147 children and met the primary criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis (13,37–40).

Two further trials were included in the analysis, although patients were not truly randomized (41,42). This further increased the power of the study and acted as a form of sensitivity analysis. One hundred ninety-four children (Tables 2 and 3) were therefore included in the two treatment groups. The remaining articles were excluded because they failed to meet the defined criteria (Table 1).





Back to Top | Article Outline

Baseline Characteristics

In all selected studies, potential confounders were evenly distributed between treatment groups at onset of the trials; age, sex, disease duration, disease distribution (small bowel, ileocecal, colonic), severity of the disease, steroid dosage, and calorie intake by enteral nutrition (Table 2).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Heterogeneity Analysis

The data appeared homogeneous, as shown by the identical values obtained from the fixed and random effects models and the nonsignificant Q values (P > 0.05 for all analyses). A Galbraith plot was used (not shown) to assess heterogeneity and confirmed all seven selected studies to be highly homogeneous.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Meta-Analysis of Five Randomized Clinical Trials

The pooled relative risk was 0.95 (95% CI 0.67–1.34; values identical in fixed and random effects models). Heterogeneity Q statistic was 0.46, with 4 df (P = 0.98;Fig. 1, Table 4).



FIG. 1.

FIG. 1.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Nonrandomized Clinical Trials

Two remaining pediatric studies, although nonrandomized, were reviewed to increase the power of this analysis. Although the study participants were not randomized, there was no evidence of selection bias. The analysis was stratified to acknowledge this difference. In the study by Breese et al. (41), 10 consecutive patients had been treated with corticosteroids, and the next 18 patients were randomized to receive cyclosporin A or enteral nutrition. The study of Chafai et al. (42) was a retrospective analysis of patients treated with corticosteroids and enteral nutrition.

Papadopoulou et al. (31) completed a retrospective analysis of very similar treatment groups, yet their study included more than one treatment episode per patient. Repeated entry of the same patient could compound any selection bias, and thus we omitted this study from our analysis (despite its having the highest RR of 1.30 [nonsignificant CI] and favoring enteral nutrition). Nicholls et al. (30) randomized patients to receive either conventional treatment (steroids or enteral nutrition) or cyclosporin A. However, they then selected patients in the conventional treatment group with small bowel disease for treatment with enteral nutrition (n = 10) and those with colonic involvement for steroid therapy (n = 4). Although a 100% remission rate was achieved in both groups, we did not include this study in our final analysis.

Although treatment was clearly allocated in a nonrandom manner by Chafai et al., (42) the allocation was made in the best interests of the patient—that is, selection of the most effective and appropriate treatment for each patient. Although the comparison of outcome is less valid than if treatment allocation is randomized, the similarity of treatment groups in some way minimizes any selection bias.

The pooled relative risk for all seven studies was 0.982 (95% CI 0.73–1.33; values identical in fixed and random effects models). Heterogeneity Q statistic was 0.82 with 6 df (P = 0.991;Fig. 2, Table 3).

FIG. 2.

FIG. 2.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Sensitivity Analysis

The inclusion of semirandomized studies assessed the sensitivity of our inclusion criteria. There was no significant change in RR or CI ranges and homogeneity was maintained (Table 3), confirming the two additional studies to be very similar to the truly randomized series. This calculation was extended to assess how many further studies would be required to reach a statistically significant treatment effect (Table 3). Only after the inclusion of 10 further studies (data not shown) that were identical in size and outcome to the largest reported pediatric study (n = 68) was a significant RR achieved in favor of steroid therapy (RR = 0.86 [95% CI 0.74–0.99]; Q = 0.83, 14 df;P = 1.0).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Qualitative Analysis

In view of the relatively limited number of children randomized, quantitative analysis of other factors had limited statistical value. We reviewed the available data with particular reference to speed of remission induction, duration of remission, nutritional endpoints, and height velocities. The only significant difference between the two treatment groups was in height velocities achieved at short-term follow-up. Thomas et al. (37) showed the children randomized to enteral nutrition to have a significantly higher mean height velocity standard deviation score (SDS) 6 months after treatment (+0.32 vs. -3.1). This was despite a significantly higher calorie intake in the steroid-treated group, indicating the growth suppressant effects of steroids are not overcome by simply increasing calorie intake.

An identical finding was reported by Sanderson et al. (13), who showed a significantly higher mean height velocity SDS at 3 months in the group randomized to enteral nutrition (+0.2 vs. -2.85). Chafai et al. (42) also confirmed a significantly higher growth velocity in the group receiving elemental diet.

Back to Top | Article Outline


In this analysis of 194 children with acute Crohn's disease, enteral nutrition was as effective as steroids at inducing a clinical remission (RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.73–1.33).

Meta-analyses published in the adult literature (1–3) suggest a clear benefit of steroid therapy over enteral nutrition. These studies in adults with acute Crohn's disease all report an OR of 0.35 (95% CI 0.23–-0.53) for achieving a remission with enteral nutrition. The RR we calculated from data presented by Griffiths et al. (1) is 0.71. The 95% CI (0.56–0.90) remains below equivalence (RR = 1.0), yet closer to the range we present.

It is also of note that in almost all pediatric and adult studies a clinical disease activity index was used (44–47) to define a clinical remission. These indices, by including measures of a patient's clinical well-being, are likely to favor remission in the steroid-treated groups, given the effect steroids have on improvement of overall well-being.

A significant difference between the adult and pediatric studies is the degree of compliance. Up to 40% of adults were withdrawn from nutritional therapy because of intolerance of the diet (1). Not surprisingly this was highest in those taking an elemental or semielemental diet by mouth (18–41%). However, of 98 children included in this meta-analysis, only 8% did not complete the course of enteral nutrition, despite requiring a semielemental diet administered by nasogastric tube. Griffiths et al. report results excluding patients who withdrew from their study because of intolerance to the diet, yet the OR remains significantly in favor of steroid therapy, 0.57 (95% CI 0.35–0.94). Calculation of the pooled RR for the same data, however, fails to reach significance (RR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.68–1.09). This implies that adults who are able to tolerate nutritional therapy are as likely to go into remission as those treated with steroids, a fact also reported in large adult studies (48).

Compliance in excess of 90% is often reported when using enteral nutrition in children (13,30,31,38). Compliance with a prolonged course of exclusive enteral diet is clearly more difficult for an adult. In addition to the inconvenience, the possible benefits for growth and development do not apply.

Recent observational studies with more palatable polymeric diets are confirming excellent compliance in children who take the diet by mouth (49,50). Successful use of enteral nutrition also requires motivated nursing, dietetic, and medical staff to support children and families during therapy. This may well explain some of the better results obtained in pediatric units in which dietary therapy has become more commonplace (31,37,40,49).

A further difference from published adult data is that in most trials of adults, prevalent rather than incident cases are recruited. In our meta-analysis of pediatric trials a large proportion of randomized patients had newly diagnosed disease. Inclusion of patients with more long-standing or intractable disease may introduce a systematic bias into adult studies. Although not proven, patients with more recently diagnosed disease may respond better to nutritional therapy than those with more long-standing disease. This would make enteral nutrition more effective and better tolerated in the pediatric population.

A qualitative review of treatment effects on growth was also performed. Despite the well-described adverse effects that corticosteroids can have on development, growth, and pubertal maturation (51), only two of the randomized studies document the short-term effects of treatment on growth velocities. The randomized studies by Sanderson et al. (13) and Thomas et al. (37) documented significantly improved height velocity in the enterally fed groups at 3 and 6 months, respectively, although pubertal staging was not controlled for specifically.

It was also impossible to quantify the impact of enteral nutrition on different disease sites. In contrast to the widely held belief that enteral feeding is less effective in large bowel disease (13,52), available data from pediatric studies (38,40) suggests large and small bowel disease respond equally well to nutritional therapy. This is confirmed by the larger adult studies (33,53). As in the meta-analyses of about 400 adults with active Crohn's disease, it was also impossible to detect valid differences in speed of remission induction and time to first relapse.

The efficacy of polymeric diets is also still debated. There are insufficient randomized pediatric or adult data comparing elemental with whole protein, polymeric diets. Although the latter are the ideal clinical choice in palatability and cost, there are no comparative studies to confirm this.

Only 32 patients in the world literature have received polymeric diets in randomized trials comparing those diets with elemental diets; however, meta-analyses including studies of semielemental diets have been unable to document significant differences in efficacy between any one of the three types of diet (1,2). Even these analyses are only able to detect large differences in treatment effects. However, along with findings in multiple observational studies in children documenting the efficacy and palatability of polymeric diets (38,49,50), these findings provide some indication of their potential. Further randomized studies comparing polymeric and elemental diets may be justified to contribute to a statistically conclusive answer.

The inclusion of seven pediatric trials in the current analysis ensured sufficient power to detect a clinically significant difference between the two therapies. Further sensitivity analyses demonstrate that for steroids to achieve a statistically significant benefit over enteral nutrition, approximately 700 more children with acute Crohn's disease would require randomization. Results obtained from these children would also have to equal the most favorable outcome for steroid therapy reported so far (RR = 0.84) (40), if our current results were to be overruled. The volume of data necessary to overturn the evidence we report here greatly strengthens these findings (RR = 0.98, CI 0.23–0.53). The entire adult literature includes only approximately 400 randomized patients. With an incidence of less than 10 per 100,000 children (54), larger studies are unlikely to be feasible in children.

Besides reaching a statistically significant conclusion, a meta-analysis must assess and quantify interstudy variability for a conclusion to be valid. A best estimate that encompasses this heterogeneity may be much more robust than a result from a large, tightly controlled, one-center study. The seven studies included in this meta-analysis were found to be substantially homogeneous in their outcomes, making the pooled estimate less uncertain and more generalizeable. Although studies tend to become more diverse as researchers try to avoid duplication of work, this field of study has remained limited in its variability in view of the well-defined population and treatment strategies.

An inherent limitation of meta-analysis is the availability of good quality studies. A key factor in this is often the quality of randomization. Lack of allocation concealment and double-blinding can lead to substantially inflated results of evaluations of treatment effects (55).

Double-blinding in studies with enteral nutrition has never been possible, and although five studies stated that patients were randomized, none reported details of their randomization methods. Because most studies have reported no difference between the treatment effect of steroids and enteral nutrition, a publication bias is most unlikely. Studies demonstrating a clear benefit for either therapy are unlikely to have been overlooked. In addition, we selected studies in abstract form to ensure inclusion of all available data. Although this prevented a quality assessment of included trials as performed by some investigators (1,2), a quality score has not always been useful in a final analysis (1,3).

This systematic review provides both a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data available on the use of enteral nutrition in children with active Crohn's disease.

If new research in this field is to contribute significantly to our practice and not merely support the current evidence, this analysis also provides an idea of the quality and volume of data required to achieve this. Allocation of funds and enrollment of patients, even if randomized, to studies merely supporting current good-quality evidence is inappropriate. In the absence of large, multicenter studies, however, this analysis demonstrates the benefit of small, well-designed randomized trials if the accumulation of quality evidence is to continue.

Corticosteroids clearly remain essential in the management of patients with Crohn's disease. However, despite their proven efficacy and ease of use, this should not preclude the use of an equally efficacious, but less-convenient therapy. The effect of steroids on growth and puberty make their repeated use particularly unsuitable for children approaching their major period of growth. Steroids also remain poor at healing bowel mucosa (56), whereas there are initial observational studies documenting improved mucosal cytokine profiles after enteral nutrition (28,50). Concerns about the long-term risks of malignancy in the face of active bowel inflammation continue (57–59). With more years of Crohn's disease ahead of them than adults, children may benefit more from achieving a better mucosal remission.

We therefore conclude that enteral nutrition is as effective as steroids in achieving a remission in children with active Crohn's disease. It is likely that a palatable, whole-protein polymeric diet is no less efficacious than an elemental, amino acid–based formula. This should make nutritional therapy a much more practical choice for both patient and clinician.

In view of the benefits of dietary therapy on growth, development, and probably the gut mucosa, an enteral diet should be recommended as first-line therapy in all children with active Crohn's disease.

Back to Top | Article Outline


The authors thanks Michael A. Stoto, Ph.D., Professor and Chair, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health and Health Services, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, for his help with the statistical analysis.

Supported by grant T32-DK07477-16 from the the National Institutes of Health Training Grant in Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition for training in clinical effectiveness (R.H.).

Back to Top | Article Outline


1. Griffiths AM, Ohlsson A, Sherman PM, Sutherland LR. Meta-analysis of enteral nutrition as a primary treatment of active Crohn's disease. Gastroenterology 1995; 108:1056–67.
2. Fernandez-Banares F, Cabre E, Esteve-Comas M, Gassull MA. How effective is enteral nutrition in inducing clinical remission in active Crohn's disease? A meta-analysis of the randomized clinical trials. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1995; 19:356–64.
3. Messori A, Trallori G, D'Albasio G, Milla M, Vannozzi G, Pacini F. Defined-formula diets versus steroids in the treatment of active Crohn's disease: A meta-analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol 1996; 31:267–72.
4. Bernstein CN, Seeger LL, Sayre JW, Anton PA, Artinian L, Shanahan F. Decreased bone density in inflammatory bowel disease is related to corticosteroid use and not disease diagnosis. J Bone Miner Res 1995; 10:250–6.
5. Gokhale R, Favus MJ, Karrison T, Sutton MM, Rich B, Kirschner BS. Bone mineral density assessment in children with inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology 1998; 114:902–11.
6. Wolthers OD, Riis BJ, Pedersen S. Bone turnover in asthmatic children treated with oral prednisolone or inhaled budesonide. Pediatr Pulmonol 1993; 16:341–6.
7. Walker-Smith JA. Dietary treatment of active Crohn's disease: Dietary treatment is best for children (letter; comment). BMJ 1997; 314:1827.
8. Savage MO, Beattie RM, Camacho-Hubner C, Walker-Smith JA, Sanderson IR. Growth in Crohn's disease. Acta Paediatr Suppl 1999; 88:89–92.
9. Ghosh S, Cowen S, Hannan WJ, Ferguson A. Low bone mineral density in Crohn's disease, but not in ulcerative colitis, at diagnosis (see comments). Gastroenterology 1994; 107:1031–9.
10. Walker-Smith JA. Management of growth failure in Crohn's disease. Arch Dis Child 1996; 75:351–4.
11. Navarro J, Vargas J, Cezard JP, Charritat JL, Polonovski C. Prolonged constant rate elemental enteral nutrition in Crohn's disease. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 1982; 1:541–6.
12. Morin CL, Roulet M, Roy CC, Weber A. Continuous elemental enteral alimentation in children with Crohn's disease and growth failure. Gastroenterology 1980; 79:1205–10.
13. Sanderson IR, Udeen S, Davies PS, Savage MO, Walker-Smith JA. Remission induced by an elemental diet in small bowel Crohn's disease. Arch Dis Child 1987; 62:123–7.
14. Beattie RM, Bentsen BS, MacDonald TT. Childhood Crohn's disease and the efficacy of enteral diets. Nutrition 1998; 14:345–50.
15. Griffiths AM. Inflammatory bowel disease. Nutrition 1998; 14:788–91.
16. Duerksen DR, Nehra V, Bistrian BR, Blackburn GL. Appropriate nutritional support in acute and complicated Crohn's disease. Nutrition 1998; 14:462–5.
17. O'Sullivan MA, O'Morain CA. Nutritional therapy in Crohn's disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 1998; 4:45–53.
18. Murch SH, Walker-Smith JA. Nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease. Baillieres Clin Gastroenterol 1998; 12:719–38.
19. Griffiths AM. Crohn's disease in adolescents. Baillieres Clin Gastroenterol 1998; 12:115–32.
20. Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH. Diseases of the small intestine in childhood. 4th ed. Oxford, England: ISIS Medical Media, 1999.
21. Walker-Smith JA. Therapy of Crohn's disease in childhood. Baillieres Clin Gastroenterol 1997; 11:593–610.
22. Beattie RM, Camacho-Hubner C, Wacharasindhu S, Cotterill AM, Walker-Smith JA, Savage MO. Responsiveness of IGF-I and IGFBP-3 to therapeutic intervention in children and adolescents with Crohn's disease. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 1998; 49:483–9.
23. Khoshoo V, Reifen R, Neuman MG, Griffiths A, Pencharz PB. Effect of low-and high-fat, peptide-based diets on body composition and disease activity in adolescents with active Crohn's disease (see comments). JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1996; 20:401–5.
24. Belli DC, Seidman E, Bouthillier L, et al. Chronic intermittent elemental diet improves growth failure in children with Crohn's disease. Gastroenterology 1988; 94:603–10.
25. Morin CL, Roulet M, Roy CC, Weber A, Lapointe N. Continuous elemental enteral alimentation in the treatment of children and adolescents with Crohn's disease. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1982; 6:194–9.
26. Ricour C, Duhamel JF, Nihoul-Fekete C. Continuous enteral feeding in children: Technique and indications in 170 cases from 1969 to 1975 (in French). Arch Fr Pediatr 1977; 34:154–70.
27. Azcue M, Rashid M, Griffiths A, Pencharz PB. Energy expenditure and body composition in children with Crohn's disease: Effect of enteral nutrition and treatment with prednisolone. Gut 1997; 41:203–8.
28. Breese EJ, Michie CA, Nicholls SW, et al. The effect of treatment on lymphokine-secreting cells in the intestinal mucosa of children with Crohn's disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1995; 9:547–52.
29. Stober B, Nutzenadel W, Ullrich F. Basic diet in Crohn's disease (in German). Monatsschr Kinderheilkd 1983; 131:721–4.
30. Nicholls S, Domizio P, Williams CB, et al. Cyclosporin as initial treatment for Crohn's disease. Arch Dis Child 1994; 71:243–7.
31. Papadopoulou A, Rawashdeh MO, Brown GA, McNeish AS, Booth IW. Remission following an elemental diet or prednisolone in Crohn's disease. Acta Paediatr 1995; 84:79–83.
32. Summers RW, Switz DM, Sessions JTJ, et al. National Cooperative Crohn's Disease Study: Results of drug treatment. Gastroenterology 1979; 77:847–69.
33. Malchow H, Ewe K, Brandes JW, et al. European Cooperative Crohn's Disease Study (ECCDS): Results of drug treatment. Gastroenterology 1984; 86:249–66.
34. Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Ins 1959; 22:719–48.
35. Breslow NE, Day NE. The design and analysis of cohort studies. In:Statistical methods in cancer research. Vol. 2: Lyon, France: IARC Science Publications 1987;1–406.
36. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7:177–88.
37. Thomas AG, Taylor F, Miller V. Dietary intake and nutritional treatment in childhood Crohn's disease. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 1993; 17:75–81.
38. Ruuska T, Savilahti E, Maki M, Ormala T, Visakorpi JK. Exclusive whole protein enteral diet versus prednisolone in the treatment of acute Crohn's disease in children. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 1994; 19:175–80.
39. Seidman E, Lohoues MJ, Turgeon L, Bouthillier L, Morin CL. Elemental diet versus prednisone as initial therapy in Crohn's disease: Early and long term results (abstract). Gastroenterology 1991; 100:250.
40. Seidman E, Griffiths A, Jones A, Issenman R. Semi-elemental diet vs prednisolone in pediatric Crohn's disease (abstract). Gastroenterology 1993; 104:778.
41. Breese EJ, Michie CA, Nicholls SW, et al. Tumor necrosis factor alpha-producing cells in the intestinal mucosa of children with inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology 1994; 106:1455–66.
42. Chafai S, Martin D, Goulet O, Mougenot JF, Ricour C, Schmitz J. Semi-elemental diet and corticosteroids in the treatment of Crohn's disease in children (abstract). J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 1995; 220:465.
43. Breese E, MacDonald TT. TNF alpha secreting cells in normal and diseased human intestine. Adv Exp Med Biol 1995; 371B:821–4.
44. Hyams JS, Ferry GD, Mandel FS, et al. Development and validation of a pediatric Crohn's disease activity index. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 1991; 12:439–47.
45. Lloyd-Still JD, Green OC. A clinical scoring system for chronic inflammatory bowel disease in children. Dig Dis Sci 1979; 24:620–4.
46. Harvey RF, Bradshaw JM. A simple index of Crohn's-disease activity. Lancet 1980; 1:514.
47. Best WR, Becktel JM, Singleton JW, Kern FJ. Development of a Crohn's disease activity index. National Cooperative Crohn's Disease Study. Gastroenterology 1976; 70:439–44.
48. Malchow H, Steinhardt HJ, Lorenz-Meyer H, et al. Feasibility and effectiveness of a defined-formula diet regimen in treating active Crohn's disease. European Cooperative Crohn's Disease Study III. Scand J Gastroenterol 1990; 25:235–44.
49. Beattie RM, Schiffrin EJ, Donnet-Hughes A, et al. Polymeric nutrition as the primary therapy in children with small bowel Crohn's disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1994; 8:609–15.
50. Fell JM, Hollis A, Paintin M, Arnaud-Battandier F, MacDonald TT, Walker-Smith JA. Normalisation of mucosal cytokine mRNA in association with clinical improvement in children with Crohn's disease treated with polymeric diet (abstract). J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 1998; 26:544.
51. Brain CE, Savage MO. Growth and puberty in chronic inflammatory bowel disease. Baillieres Clin Gastroenterol 1994; 8:83–100.
52. Teahon K, Bjarnason I, Pearson M, Levi AJ. Ten years' experience with an elemental diet in the management of Crohn's disease. Gut 1990; 31:1133–7.
53. Lochs H, Steinhardt HJ, Klaus-Wentz B, et al. Comparison of enteral nutrition and drug treatment in active Crohn's disease: Results of the European Cooperative Crohn's Disease Study. Part IV (see comments). Gastroenterology 1991; 101:881–8.
54. Barton JR, Gillon S, Ferguson A. Incidence of inflammatory bowel disease in Scottish children between 1968 and 1983: Marginal fall in ulcerative colitis, three-fold rise in Crohn's disease. Gut 1989; 30:618–22.
55. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 273:408–12.
56. Modigliani R, Mary JY, Simon JF, et al. Clinical, biological, and endoscopic picture of attacks of Crohn's disease: Evolution on prednisolone. Groupe d'Etude Therapeutique des Affections Inflammatoires Digestives. Gastroenterology 1990; 98:811–8.
57. Leichtner AM, Jackson DW, Grand RJ. Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. In: Walker WA, Durie PR, Hamilton JR, Walker-Smith JA, Watkins JB, eds. Pediatric gastrointestinal disease: Pathophysiology, diagnosis, management. St Louis, MO: Mosby, 1996: 692–726.
58. Ekbom A, Helmick C, Zack M, Adami HO. Increased risk of large-bowel cancer in Crohn's disease with colonic involvement. Lancet 1990; 336:357–9.
59. Richards ME, Rickert RR, Nance FC. Crohn's disease-associated carcinoma: A poorly recognized complication of inflammatory bowel disease. Ann Surg 1989; 209:764–73.

Child; Crohn's disease; Enteral nutrition; Meta-analysis of publications; Steroids

© 2000 by European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition and North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology,