SynthesisMedicine2018
Nasointestinal tubes versus nasogastric tubes in the management of small-bowel obstruction: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gastric-tube versus post-pyloric feeding in critical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of pulmonary aspiration- and nutrition-related outcomes.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2021Pooled it
- Clinical factors associated with surgical interventions in patients with intestinal obstruction caused by abdominal tuberculosis.Surgery today · 2025Article
- Success rate and associated factors of conservative management of adhesive small bowel obstruction at Dessie comprehensive specialized hospital, Northeast Ethiopia.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Machine Learning Predicts the Need for Surgical Intervention in Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is no consensus regarding the therapeutic effect of nasointestinal tubes (NITs) versus nasogastric tubes (NGTs) in the management of small-bowel obstruction (SBO). This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between the use of NITs and NGTs in the management of SBO.
methodsPublished studies on comparing NITs with NGTs in the treatment of SBO were searched from electronic databases. Two investigators independently extracted the data; any discrepancies were adjudicated by a third investigator. Pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using Review Manager 5.0.
resultsAn extensive literature search identified 268 relevant publications, 4 of which met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in the nonrequirement of operative intervention between NITs and NGTs groups (OR: 1.79; 95% CI: 0.55, 5.84). Compared with the NGTs, the NITs, which successfully passed through the pylorus, did not decrease the rate of operation in patients with SBO (OR: 2.19; 95% CI: 0.59, 8.15). There was no advantage of NITs over NGTs in patients with partial SBO (P-SBO) (OR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.23, 4.60). Postoperative complications were compared between the groups (OR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.09, 4.15).
conclusionThe result of this meta-analysis showed no advantage of NITs over NGTs in the management of patients with SBO.
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.