Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25505719›Full record

ArticleClinical endoscopy2014

Comparison of clinical outcomes associated with pull-type and introducer-type percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies.

Sin Won Lee, Jeong Hoon Lee, Hyungjin Cho, Yeonjung Ha, Hyun Lim, Ji Yong Ahn, Kwi Sook Choi, Do Hoon Kim, Kee Don Choi, Ho June Song and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. [Clinical Practice Guideline for Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2023
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

13 authors.

Sin Won LeeDepartment of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jeong Hoon LeeDepartment of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Hyungjin ChoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Yeonjung HaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Hyun LimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Ji Yong AhnDepartment of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Kwi Sook ChoiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Do Hoon KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Kee Don ChoiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Ho June SongDepartment of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Gin Hyug LeeDepartment of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Hwoon-Yong JungDepartment of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jin-Ho KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsPercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a method of providing enteral nutrition using endoscopy. The PEG techniques differ according to the insertion method, and include the pull type, push type, and introducer type. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes associated with the pull-type and introducer-type PEG insertion techniques, which included the adverse events, at our tertiary care center in Korea.

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 141 cases that had undergone PEG insertion at our center from January 2009 to June 2012. The indications for PEG insertion and the acute and chronic complications caused by each type of PEG insertion were analyzed.

resultsThe indications for PEG insertion in our cohort included neurologic disease (58.7%), malignancy (21.7%), and other indications (19.6%). Successful PEG insertions were performed on 136 cases (96.5%), and there were no PEG-associated deaths. Bleeding was the most frequent acute complication (12.8%), and wound problems were the most frequent chronic complications (8.8%). There were no statistically significant differences between the pull-type and introducer-type PEG insertion techniques in relation to complication rates in our study population.

conclusionsPEG insertion is considered a safe procedure. The pull-type and introducer-type PEG insertion techniques produce comparable outcomes, and physicians may choose either of these approaches according to the circumstances.

Indexed as

ComplicationIndication for PEGIntroducer typePercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomyPull type

Identifiers

PMID25505719
PMCPMC4260101

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.