Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18679534›Full record

ReviewMedscape journal of medicine2008

Complications of and controversies associated with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: report of a case and literature review.

Jonathan Z Potack, Sita Chokhavatia

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readCase ReportsReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medscape journal of medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05288556 (Single Site, Prospective, Phase I Study, Safety and Efficacy of Enteral Feeding Tube Stoma Site Accessory), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05288556 naterminatednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Single Site, Prospective, Phase I Study, Safety and Efficacy of Enteral Feeding Tube Stoma Site Accessory

TypeinterventionalSponsorEric YudelevichRan2022 to 2023Enrolled5ConditionsFeeding Tube ComplicationArmsPlacement of stoma site enteral feeding tube accessory
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Hospital Readmissions of Stroke Patients with Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Feeding Tubes.Journal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases : the official journal of National Stroke Association · 2016
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Laparoscopic-assisted percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jonathan Z PotackDr. Henry D. Janowitz Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. jonathan.potack@mssm.edu
Sita Chokhavatia
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextPercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is one of the most commonly performed gastrointestinal procedures, despite absence of benefit in many patients and risks associated with the procedure. Increased education of primary care physicians about the shortcomings of PEG may allow for better selection of patients to be referred for PEG placement. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a comprehensive literature review by searching PUBMED using the search headings percutaneous enteral gastrostomy, PEG, complications, dementia, stroke, dysphagia, malnutrition, and complications. We identified English language articles from 1980 onward. The highest quality data were considered to be randomized controlled trials although given the paucity of trials in this area, we used all of the various types of literature. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We based the major conclusions of this review, where possible, on the most robust literature, namely, controlled trials. However, the majority of the available literature in this field is based on case series. We attempted to maximize the use of larger case series with longer term follow-up. Case reports were used only to report on rare complications where no other literature was available.

conclusionsDespite more than 30 years of experience with PEG, numerous questions remain regarding the utility of nutrition support in many of the clinical scenarios in which PEG placement is contemplated. There is a multitude of evidence that artificial nutrition does not improve outcome or quality of life in patients with dementia who have decreased oral intake. It is likely that ethical, moral, religious, and legal considerations of family members and caregivers play a role in the decision to place a PEG in a patient with dementia despite the medical evidence demonstrating lack of benefit.

Indexed as

AgedEndoscopy, GastrointestinalGastrostomyHumansMalePostoperative Complications

Identifiers

PMID18679534
PMCPMC2491665
OpenAlexW106458843

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.