Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29367443›Full record

ArticleNeurology2018

Outcomes among patients with direct enteral vs nasogastric tube placement after acute stroke.

Raed A Joundi, Gustavo Saposnik, Rosemary Martino, Jiming Fang, Joan Porter, Moira K Kapral

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Neurology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Raed A JoundiFrom the Division of Neurology (R.A.J.), Department of Medicine, Stroke Outcomes Research Unit, Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital (G.S.), Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (G.S., M.K.K.), Department of Speech-Language Pathology (R.M.), Graduate Department of Rehabilitation Science (R.M.), and Division of General Internal Medicine (M.K.K.), Department of Medicine, University of Toronto; Health Care and Outcomes Research, Krembil Research Institute (R.M.), University Health Network; and Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) (J.F., J.P., M.K.K., G.S.), Toronto, Canada.
Gustavo SaposnikFrom the Division of Neurology (R.A.J.), Department of Medicine, Stroke Outcomes Research Unit, Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital (G.S.), Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (G.S., M.K.K.), Department of Speech-Language Pathology (R.M.), Graduate Department of Rehabilitation Science (R.M.), and Division of General Internal Medicine (M.K.K.), Department of Medicine, University of Toronto; Health Care and Outcomes Research, Krembil Research Institute (R.M.), University Health Network; and Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) (J.F., J.P., M.K.K., G.S.), Toronto, Canada.
Rosemary MartinoFrom the Division of Neurology (R.A.J.), Department of Medicine, Stroke Outcomes Research Unit, Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital (G.S.), Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (G.S., M.K.K.), Department of Speech-Language Pathology (R.M.), Graduate Department of Rehabilitation Science (R.M.), and Division of General Internal Medicine (M.K.K.), Department of Medicine, University of Toronto; Health Care and Outcomes Research, Krembil Research Institute (R.M.), University Health Network; and Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) (J.F., J.P., M.K.K., G.S.), Toronto, Canada.
Jiming FangFrom the Division of Neurology (R.A.J.), Department of Medicine, Stroke Outcomes Research Unit, Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital (G.S.), Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (G.S., M.K.K.), Department of Speech-Language Pathology (R.M.), Graduate Department of Rehabilitation Science (R.M.), and Division of General Internal Medicine (M.K.K.), Department of Medicine, University of Toronto; Health Care and Outcomes Research, Krembil Research Institute (R.M.), University Health Network; and Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) (J.F., J.P., M.K.K., G.S.), Toronto, Canada.
Joan PorterFrom the Division of Neurology (R.A.J.), Department of Medicine, Stroke Outcomes Research Unit, Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital (G.S.), Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (G.S., M.K.K.), Department of Speech-Language Pathology (R.M.), Graduate Department of Rehabilitation Science (R.M.), and Division of General Internal Medicine (M.K.K.), Department of Medicine, University of Toronto; Health Care and Outcomes Research, Krembil Research Institute (R.M.), University Health Network; and Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) (J.F., J.P., M.K.K., G.S.), Toronto, Canada.
Moira K KapralFrom the Division of Neurology (R.A.J.), Department of Medicine, Stroke Outcomes Research Unit, Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital (G.S.), Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (G.S., M.K.K.), Department of Speech-Language Pathology (R.M.), Graduate Department of Rehabilitation Science (R.M.), and Division of General Internal Medicine (M.K.K.), Department of Medicine, University of Toronto; Health Care and Outcomes Research, Krembil Research Institute (R.M.), University Health Network; and Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) (J.F., J.P., M.K.K., G.S.), Toronto, Canada. moira.kapral@uhn.ca.
Krembil Research InstituteUniversity Health Network · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare complications, disability, and long-term mortality of patients who received direct enteral tube vs nasogastric tube feeding alone after acute stroke.

methodsWe used the Ontario Stroke Registry to identify patients who received direct enteral tubes (DET; gastrostomy or jejunostomy) or temporary nasogastric tubes (NGT) alone during hospital stay after acute ischemic stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage from July 1, 2003, to March 31, 2013. We used propensity matching to compare groups from discharge and evaluated discharge disability, institutionalization, complications, and mortality, with follow-up over 2 years, and with cumulative incidence functions used to account for competing risks.

resultsAmong 1,448 patients with DET placement who survived until discharge, 1,421 were successfully matched to patients with NGT alone. Patients with DET had reduced risk of death within 30 days after discharge (9.7% vs 15.3%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.75), but this difference was eliminated after matching on length of stay and discharge disability (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70-1.17). Patients with DET had higher rates of severe disability at discharge (modified Rankin Scale score 4-5; 89.6% vs 78.4%), discharge to long-term care (38.0% vs 16.1%), aspiration pneumonia (14.4% vs 5.1%) and other complications, and mortality at 2 years (41.1% vs 35.9%).

conclusionsPatients with DET placement after acute stroke have more severe disability at discharge compared to those with NGT placement alone, and associated higher rates of institutionalization, medical complications, and long-term mortality. These findings may inform goals of care discussions and decisions regarding long-term tube feeding after acute stroke.

Indexed as

Enteral NutritionIntubation, GastrointestinalAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesDisability EvaluationFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGastrostomyHumansIncidenceJejunostomyLength of StayMaleOntarioPostoperative Complications

Identifiers

PMID29367443
PMCPMC5818013
OpenAlexW2785291862

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.