FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4300688766> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4300688766 abstract "Background For people who are malnourished and unable to consume food by mouth, nasoenteral feeding tubes are commonly used for the administration of liquid food and drugs. Postpyloric placement is when the tip of the feeding tube is placed beyond the pylorus, in the small intestine. Endoscopic‐guided placement of postpyloric feeding tubes is the most common approach. Usually, an endoscopist and two or more medical professionals perform this procedure using a guidewire technique. The position of the tube is then confirmed with fluoroscopy or radiography, which requires moving people undergoing the procedure to the radiology department. Alternatively, electromagnetic‐guided placement of postpyloric nasoenteral feeding tubes can be performed by a single trained nurse, at the bedside and with less equipment than endoscopic‐guided placement. Hence, electromagnetic‐guided placement may represent a promising alternative to endoscopic‐guided placement, especially in settings where endoscopy and radiographic facilities are unavailable or difficult to access. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of electromagnetic‐guided placement of postpyloric nasoenteral feeding tubes compared to endoscopic‐guided placement. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and OpenGrey until February 2021. We screened the reference lists of relevant review articles and current treatment guidelines for further literature. We contacted the study authors for missing data. Selection criteria We included randomised trials comparing electromagnetic‐guided placement with endoscopic‐guided placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes. We excluded prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, (nested) case‐control studies, cross‐sectional studies, and case series or case reports. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed the methodological quality of potentially eligible trials and extracted data from the included trials. The primary outcomes were technical success in insertion and aspiration pneumonitis. The secondary outcomes were the time for postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes, direct healthcare costs, and adverse events. We performed a random‐effects meta‐analysis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We evaluated the certainty of evidence based on the GRADE approach. Main results We identified four randomised controlled trials with 541 participants which met our inclusion criteria. All trials had methodological limitations, and lack of blinding of participants and investigators was a major source of bias. We had 'some concerns' for the overall risk of bias in all trials. Electromagnetic‐guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes may result in little to no difference in technical success in insertion compared to endoscopic‐guided placement (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.35; I2 = 81%; low‐certainty evidence). Electromagnetic‐guided placement may result in a difference in the proportion of participants with aspiration pneumonitis compared to endoscopic‐guided placement, but these results are unclear (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.18; I2 = 0%; low‐certainty evidence). Electromagnetic‐guided placement may result in little to no difference in the time for postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes compared to endoscopic‐guided placement (MD 4.06 minutes, 95% CI ‐0.47 to 8.59; I2 = 97%; low‐certainty evidence). Electromagnetic‐guided placement likely reduces direct healthcare costs compared to endoscopic‐guided placement (MD ‐127.69 US dollars, 95% CI ‐135.71 to ‐119.67; moderate‐certainty evidence). Electromagnetic‐guided placement likely results in little to no difference in adverse events compared with endoscopic‐guided placement (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.49; moderate‐certainty evidence). Authors' conclusions We found low‐certainty evidence that electromagnetic‐guided placement at the bedside results in little to no difference in technical success in insertion and aspiration pneumonitis, compared to endoscopic‐guided placement. The heterogeneity of the healthcare professionals who performed the procedures and the small sample sizes limited our confidence in the evidence. Future research should be based on large studies with well‐defined endpoints to potentially elucidate the differences between these two procedures." @default.
• W4300688766 created "2022-10-04" @default.
• W4300688766 creator A5013904946 @default.
• W4300688766 creator A5053801556 @default.
• W4300688766 creator A5059114107 @default.
• W4300688766 creator A5062651931 @default.
• W4300688766 creator A5081707502 @default.
• W4300688766 date "2022-10-03" @default.
• W4300688766 modified "2023-10-05" @default.
• W4300688766 title "Electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic-guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes" @default.
• W4300688766 cites W177089332 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W1883482717 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W1972396537 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W1976448487 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W1980939347 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W1990946049 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W1993431422 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W1993986075 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2017555288 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2018992249 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2021564617 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2022056723 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2022100246 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2024862672 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2036119621 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2060317278 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2089312158 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2092473607 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2095194615 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2099246031 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2125435699 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2137522350 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2146588735 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2150004917 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2153181026 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2156549744 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2162526078 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2321881523 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2323887451 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2328023807 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2416783311 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2473016454 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2620909928 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2791085602 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2892071614 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2893877102 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2908241634 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2943287971 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2970684805 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W2978795816 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W3110802460 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W3127037440 @default.
• W4300688766 cites W4300688766 @default.
• W4300688766 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd013865.pub2" @default.
• W4300688766 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36189639" @default.
• W4300688766 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4300688766 type Work @default.
• W4300688766 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W4300688766 countsByYear W43006887662022 @default.
• W4300688766 countsByYear W43006887662023 @default.
• W4300688766 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4300688766 hasAuthorship W4300688766A5013904946 @default.
• W4300688766 hasAuthorship W4300688766A5053801556 @default.
• W4300688766 hasAuthorship W4300688766A5059114107 @default.
• W4300688766 hasAuthorship W4300688766A5062651931 @default.
• W4300688766 hasAuthorship W4300688766A5081707502 @default.
• W4300688766 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W4300688766 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W4300688766 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4300688766 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4300688766 hasConcept C2776478404 @default.
• W4300688766 hasConcept C2778045676 @default.
• W4300688766 hasConcept C2778451229 @default.
• W4300688766 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W4300688766 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4300688766 hasConceptScore W4300688766C141071460 @default.
• W4300688766 hasConceptScore W4300688766C168563851 @default.
• W4300688766 hasConceptScore W4300688766C17744445 @default.
• W4300688766 hasConceptScore W4300688766C199539241 @default.
• W4300688766 hasConceptScore W4300688766C2776478404 @default.
• W4300688766 hasConceptScore W4300688766C2778045676 @default.
• W4300688766 hasConceptScore W4300688766C2778451229 @default.
• W4300688766 hasConceptScore W4300688766C2779473830 @default.
• W4300688766 hasConceptScore W4300688766C71924100 @default.
• W4300688766 hasIssue "10" @default.
• W4300688766 hasLocation W43006887661 @default.
• W4300688766 hasLocation W43006887662 @default.
• W4300688766 hasOpenAccess W4300688766 @default.
• W4300688766 hasPrimaryLocation W43006887661 @default.
• W4300688766 hasRelatedWork W1967911880 @default.
• W4300688766 hasRelatedWork W1996551696 @default.
• W4300688766 hasRelatedWork W2003938723 @default.
• W4300688766 hasRelatedWork W2047967234 @default.
• W4300688766 hasRelatedWork W2118496982 @default.
• W4300688766 hasRelatedWork W2439875401 @default.
• W4300688766 hasRelatedWork W4238867864 @default.
• W4300688766 hasRelatedWork W4317910581 @default.
• W4300688766 hasRelatedWork W4360608871 @default.
• W4300688766 hasRelatedWork W2525756941 @default.
• W4300688766 hasVolume "2022" @default.

• next