ArticleNutrients2019
Patients Discharged with Home Enteral Nutrition from a Third-Level Hospital in 2018.
Article in Nutrients, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Effect of Tumor-Specific Total Nutrients in Patients with Adjuvant Chemotherapy After Radical Gastric Cancer Resection: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2024Trial
- Frontier and hot topics in home enteral nutrition based on CiteSpace bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Review
- Research trends in nutritional interventions for stroke: a bibliometric analysis and literature review.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Article
- A retrospective analysis on epidemiological characteristics of home enteral nutrition: results from a Chinese tertiary hospital in 2018.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients who, during admission, begin to use enteral nutrition (EN) and do not recover adequate oral intake need proper planning prior to discharge. The present study is a descriptive analysis of patients discharged with EN from our hospital in 2018. In all, the study included 141 patients (50.3% male) with an average age of 76.18 ± 14 years with the most frequent reasons for enteral support being neurological disease (71.3%) and ear, nose, and throat (ENT) and maxillofacial surgery (17.02%) (others accounted for 11.68%). In these two groups, differences were observed in both the average age (77 vs. 70.5 years) and sex of patients-mostly women (58%) in the first group and men (70%) in the second. Overall, the access routes used were nasogastric tube (76.4%), and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (18.4%); 67.1% of the episodes ended by 30 June, 60.6% of patients died (47% of neurological patients), and 39.3% patients recovered function of the oral passage (85% of surgical/head and neck tumor). The duration of support was as follows: 1-3 months, 32%; 6-12 months, 26.9%; more than 12 months, 18.5%. This indicated some frequent and clearly differentiated profiles in the patients studied, which may contribute to better care and support in order to maintain long-term treatment.
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.