Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30809726›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019

Physician opinions on decision making for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding tube placement.

Theresa A Fessler, Timothy B Short, Kate F Willcutts, Robert G Sawyer

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Emotional, Ethical and Cultural Challenges in Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) Decision-Making: A Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Theresa A FesslerDepartment of Nutrition Services, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, 22903, USA. taf4c@virginia.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-9890-4814
Timothy B ShortDepartment of Palliative Care, University of Virginia Heath System, Charlottesville, VA, 22903, USA.
Kate F WillcuttsDepartment of Nutrition Services, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, 22903, USA.
Robert G SawyerDepartment of Surgery, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, 49008, USA.
University of Virginia Health System · USWestern Michigan University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPercutaneous endoscopically placed gastrostomy (PEG) tubes are useful for long-term enteral nutrition; however, they are associated with lack of benefit for patients with advanced dementia, at end of life, and for some stroke patients with early regain of swallowing function. We surveyed physician opinions on decision making with the aim to identify factors that can lead to inappropriate PEG placement, as a first step of a quality improvement initiative to prevent inappropriate PEG placements at our facility.

methodsA survey was distributed to 231 physicians, with questions about discussion topics, contraindications, responsibilities, and practices in decision making for PEG placement. Five-point Likert scales were used for most responses.

resultsOf 62 respondents, the majority were general surgeons (51.6%) and neurologists (30.6%). Levels of agreement were very low that PEG placement is contraindicated in advanced dementia (> 56% disagreed) and at end of life (55% disagreed) with scores of 2.4 and 2.5 (out of 5), respectively. Agreement level was low (score of 2.85) for delaying PEG for stroke patients by at least 2 weeks. Agreement was high for the discussion topics, for allowing 1-7 days for processing information, and for consulting the nutrition service. Over 98% of respondents chose primary team and 58% chose both primary and endoscopy teams as being responsible for discussions with patients and care partners in the decision-making process.

conclusionsGreater awareness is needed of the lack of benefit of PEG feeding in advanced dementia, at end of life, and for some stroke patients with early regain of swallow function. Disagreement exists as to whether the primary team and endoscopist share in the responsibility for discussions in decision making for PEG placement.

Indexed as

ContraindicationsDecision MakingDementiaEnteral NutritionGastrostomyHumansPhysiciansPractice Patterns, Physicians'Retrospective StudiesStrokeAdvanced dementiaDecision makingEnd of lifeEnteral nutritionPercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG)Stroke

Identifiers

PMID30809726
OpenAlexW2915787854

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.