Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24244880›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of gastrointestinal pathophysiology2013

Usefulness of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy for supportive therapy of advanced aerodigestive cancer.

Haruei Ogino, Hirotada Akiho

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of gastrointestinal pathophysiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Prophylactic vs. reactive percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes in head and neck cancer: a meta-analysis of survival and supportive care outcomes.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Haruei OginoHaruei Ogino, Hirotada Akiho, Department of Gastroenterology, Kitakyushu Municipal Medical Center, Kitakyushu 802-0077, Japan.
Hirotada Akiho
Kitakyushu Municipal Medical Center · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aerodigestive cancer, like esophageal cancer or head and neck cancer, is well known to have a poor prognosis. It is often diagnosed in the late stages, with dysphagia being the major symptom. Insufficient nutrition and lack of stimulation of the intestinal mucosa may worsen immune compromise due to toxic side effects. A poor nutritional status is a significant prognostic factor for increased mortality. Therefore, it is most important to optimize enteral nutrition in patients with aerodigestive cancer before and during treatment, as well as during palliative treatment. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) may be useful for nutritional support. However, PEG tube placement is limited by digestive tract stenosis and is an invasive endoscopic procedure with a risk of complications. There are three PEG techniques. The pull/push and introducer methods have been established as standard techniques for PEG tube placement. The modified introducer method, namely the direct method, allows for direct placement of a larger button-bumper-type catheter device. PEG tube placement using the introducer method or the direct method may be a much safer alternative than the pull/push method. PEG may be recommended in patients with aerodigestive cancer because of the improved complication rate.

Indexed as

Aerodigestive cancerComplicationsDirect methodIntroducer methodPercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomyPull/push method

Identifiers

PMID24244880
PMCPMC3829456
OpenAlexW2002703796

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.