SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013
Nasal versus oral route for placing feeding tubes in preterm or low birth weight infants.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evidence that informs feeding practices in very low birthweight and very preterm infants in sub-Saharan Africa: an overview of systematic reviews.BMJ paediatrics open · 2020Pooled it
- Cortical hemodynamic activity and pain perception during insertion of feeding tubes in preterm neonates: a randomized controlled cross-over trial.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2022Trial
- Efficacy and Safety of Orogastric vs. Nasogastric Tube Feeding in Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- [Expert consensus on enteral nutrition management of preterm infants (2024)].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2024Article
- New policies on skin-to-skin contact warrant an oxytocin-based perspective on perinatal health care.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Influences of Orogastric and Nasogastric Tubes on Sucking Pressure during Bottle Feeding in Immature Infants.The Kobe journal of medical sciences · 2023Article
- Indications, Measurements, and Complications of Ten Essential Neonatal Procedures.International journal of pediatrics · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 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 determine the effect of nasal versus oral placement of enteral feeding tubes on feed tolerance, growth and development, and the incidence of adverse events in preterm or low birth weight infants. SEARCH
methodsWe used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2012, Issue 10), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (to September 2012), conference proceedings, and previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared nasal versus oral placement of enteral 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 two review authors. We synthesised data using a fixed-effect model and reported typical risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and weighted mean difference (WMD). MAIN
resultsThree studies fulfilled the review eligibility criteria. Two were parallel group trials (van Someren 1984; Dsilna 2005) and one was a cross-over trial (Bohnhorst 2010). The two parallel group randomised controlled trials enrolled 88 preterm infants. Only one trial reported data on the pre-specified primary outcomes for this review. This trial found no evidence of effect on the time taken to establish enteral feeding or the time taken to regain birth weight. However, the trial was underpowered to exclude modest effect sizes. We identified one randomised cross-over trial in which 35 very preterm infants participated. This study did not find any statistically significant effects on the incidence of apnoea, desaturation, and bradycardia during the study period. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThere are insufficient data available to inform practice. A large randomised controlled trial would be required to determine if the use of naso- versus oro-enteric feeding tubes affects feeding, growth and development, and the incidence of adverse events in preterm or low birth weight infants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.