ArticleSurgical oncology2015
The association between gastrostomy tube placement, poor post-operative outcomes, and hospital re-admissions in head and neck cancer patients.
Article in Surgical oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Multilevel Associations Between Patient- and Hospital-Level Factors and In-Hospital Mortality Among Hospitalized Patients With Head and Neck Cancer.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2020Article
- Evidence-Based Support for Nutrition Therapy in Head and Neck Cancer.Current surgery reports · 2017Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesInvestigate the relationship of G-tube placement timing on post-operative outcomes.
participants908 patients underwent resection of head and neck upper aerodigestive tract tumors between 2007 and 2013. Patient charts were retrospectively screened for patient demographics, pre-operative nutrition variables, co-morbid conditions, Tumor-Node-Metastasis staging, surgical treatment type, and timing of G-tube placement. Exclusionary criteria included death within the first three months of the resection and resections performed solely for nodal disease. MAIN OUTCOMES: Post-surgical outcomes, including wound and medical complications, hospital re-admissions, length of inpatient hospital stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) time.
results793 surgeries were included: 8% of patients had G-tubes pre-operatively and 25% had G-tubes placed post-operatively. Patients with G-tubes (pre-operative or post-operative) were more likely to have complications and prolonged hospital care as compared to those without G-tubes (p < 0.001). Patients with pre-operative G-tubes had shortened length of stay (p = 0.007), less weight loss (p = 0.03), and fewer wound care needs (p < 0.0001), when compared to those that received G-tubes post-operatively. Those with G-tubes placed post-operatively had worse outcomes in all categories, except pre-operative BMI.
conclusionsThough having enteral access in the form of a G-tube at any point suggests a more high risk patient, having a G-tube placed in the pre-operative period may protect against poor post-operative outcomes. Post-operative outcomes can be predicted based on patient characteristics available to the physician in the pre-operative period.
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.