Trial reportThe American journal of gastroenterology2016
Electromagnetic-Guided Bedside Placement of Nasoenteral Feeding Tubes by Nurses Is Non-Inferior to Endoscopic Placement by Gastroenterologists: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic-guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Real-time imaging-guided visualization facilitates post-pyloric feeding tube placement in critically ill patients: a prospective randomized controlled study.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Trial
- Non-placement of nasogastric tube versus early removal of nasogastric tube in the enhanced recovery after surgery of hepatocellular carcinoma: a case control study.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2026Article
- Electromagnetic-Guided Nasogastric Tube Insertion by Nurses: A Multicenter Non-Inferiority Study.Annals of nutrition & metabolism · 2026Article
- Magnetic navigation-assisted colonoscopic enteral tube placement in swine (with video): a preliminary study.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Use of an electromagnetic-guided device to assist with post-pyloric placement of a nasoenteral feeding tube: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2022Review
- Electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic placement of post-pyloric feeding tubes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Journal of intensive care · 2020Article
- A novel quick transendoscopic enteral tubing in mid-gut: technique and training with video.BMC gastroenterology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
17 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesElectromagnetic (EM)-guided bedside placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes by nurses may improve efficiency and reduce patient discomfort and costs compared with endoscopic placement by gastroenterologists. However, evidence supporting this task shift from gastroenterologists to nurses is limited. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of EM-guided and endoscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement.
methodsWe performed a multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial in 154 adult patients who required nasoenteral feeding and were admitted to gastrointestinal surgical wards in five Dutch hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo EM-guided or endoscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement. The primary end point was the need for reinsertion of the feeding tube (e.g., after failed initial placement or owing to tube-related complications) with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%.
resultsReinsertion was required in 29 (36%) of the 80 patients in the EM-guided group and 31 (42%) of the 74 patients in the endoscopy group (absolute risk difference -6%, upper limit of one-sided 95% confidence interval 7%; P for non-inferiority=0.022). No differences were noted in success and complication rates. In the EM-guided group, there was a reduced time to start of feeding (424 vs. 535 min, P=0.001). Although the level of discomfort was higher in the EM-guided group (Visual Analog Scale (VAS) 3.9 vs. 2.0, P=0.009), EM-guided placement received higher recommendation scores (VAS 8.2 vs. 5.5, P=0.008).
conclusionsEM-guided bedside placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes by nurses was non-inferior to endoscopic placement by gastroenterologists in surgical patients and may be considered the preferred technique for nasoenteral feeding tube placement.
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.