Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24453356›Full record

SynthesisJournal of radiation research2014

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for patients with head and neck cancer: a systematic review.

Jinfeng Wang, Minjie Liu, Chao Liu, Yun Ye, Guanhong Huang

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of radiation research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 106 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. The role of prehabilitation in HNSCC patients treated with chemoradiotherapy.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. A European survey on the practice of nutritional interventions in head-neck cancer patients undergoing curative treatment with radio(chemo)therapy.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2022
    Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jinfeng WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Lianyungang Hospital of Bengbu Medical College, Jiangsu, China.
Minjie Liu
Chao Liu
Yun Ye
Guanhong Huang
Bengbu Medical College · CNNantong University · CNThe First People’s Hospital of Lianyungang · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are two main enteral feeding strategies-namely nasogastric (NG) tube feeding and percutaneous gastrostomy-used to improve the nutritional status of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). But up till now there has been no consistent evidence about which method of enteral feeding is the optimal method for this patient group. To compare the effectiveness of percutaneous gastrostomy and NGT feeding in patients with HNC, relevant literature was identified through Medline, Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane, Wiley and manual searches. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-experimental studies comparing percutaneous gastrostomy-including percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous fluoroscopic gastrostomy (PFG) -with NG for HNC patients. Data extraction recorded characteristics of intervention, type of study and factors that contributed to the methodological quality of the individual studies. Data were then compared with respect to nutritional status, duration of feeding, complications, radiotherapy delays, disease-free survival and overall survival. Methodological quality of RCTs and non-experimental studies were assessed with separate standard grading scales. It became apparent from our studies that both feeding strategies have advantages and disadvantages.

Indexed as

CausalityComorbidityEnteral NutritionFemaleGastroscopyGastrostomyHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansIntubation, GastrointestinalMaleMalnutritionRisk FactorsSurvival RateTreatment Outcomeenteral nutritiongastrostomyhead and neck neoplasmsnasogastric tubespercutaneous gastrostomy

Identifiers

PMID24453356
PMCPMC4014167
OpenAlexW2159300872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.