SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004
Nasal versus oral route for placing feeding tubes in preterm or low birth weight infants.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Nasal versus oral route for placing feeding tubes in preterm or low birth weight infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Orogastric vs. Nasogastric Tube Feeding in Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnteral feeding tubes for preterm or low birth weight infants may be placed via either the nose or mouth. Nasal placement may compromise respiration. However, orally placed tubes may be more prone to displacement, local irritation, and vagal stimulation.
objectivesTo assess the available evidence from randomised controlled trials concerning the effects of nasally placed compared with orally placed feeding tubes on growth and development, and the incidence of adverse consequences in preterm or low birth weight infants. SEARCH STRATEGY: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, including electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 - April 2004), EMBASE (1988 - April 2004), and CINAHL (1982- April 2004), conference proceedings, and previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared the use of the nasal versus oral route for placing feeding tubes in preterm or low birth weight infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by each author, and analysis of data using relative risk, risk difference and mean difference. MAIN
resultsWe found only one eligible trial. Forty-two infants participated in the study. This primary aim of the trial was to assess the effect of oral versus nasal placement of feeding tubes on the incidence of apnea and periodic breathing in preterm infants. The trial did not report data on the pre-specified primary outcomes for this review (growth and development). REVIEWERS'
conclusionsThere are insufficient data available to inform practice. A large randomised controlled trial is required to determine if the use of nasally placed feeding tubes compared with orally placed feeding tubes improves growth and development, without increasing adverse consequences in preterm or low birth weight infants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15266509What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.