ArticleJournal of intensive care2020
Electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic placement of post-pyloric feeding tubes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Article in Journal of intensive care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic-guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Real-time visualization of the gastrointestinal tract during nasogastric tube placement: Pilot study of new video-Assisted system.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Application of electromagnetic navigation guidance technology in enteral nutrition support for a case of severe acute pancreatitis with duodenal fistula: a case report.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Multivariate analysis of factors associated with the successful prediction of initial blind placement of a nasointestinal tube in the stomach based on X-ray imaging: a retrospective, single-center 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
- A Two-Stage Bedside Intubation Method to Improve Success Rate of Post-pyloric Placement of Spiral Nasoenteric Tubes in Critically Ill Patients: A Multi-Center, Prospective Study.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent evidence supporting the utility of electromagnetic (EM)-guided method as the preferred technique for post-pyloric feeding tube placement is limited. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the performance of EM-guided versus endoscopic placement.
methodsWe searched several databases for all randomised controlled trials evaluating the EM-guided vs. endoscopic placement of post-pyloric feeding tubes up to 28 July 2020. Primary outcome was procedure success rate. Secondary outcomes included reinsertion rate, number of attempts, placement-related complications, tube-related complications, insertion time, total procedure time, patient discomfort, recommendation scores, length of hospital stay, mortality, and total costs.
resultsFour trials involving 536 patients were qualified for the final analysis. There was no difference between the two groups in procedure success rate (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.91-1.03), reinsertion rate (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.59-1.20), number of attempts (WMD - 0.23; 95% CI - 0.99-0.53), placement-related complications (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.41-1.49), tube-related complications (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.82-1.44), total procedure time (WMD - 18.09 min; 95% CI - 38.66-2.47), length of hospital stay (WMD 1.57 days; 95% CI - 0.33-3.47), ICU mortality (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.50-1.29), in-hospital mortality (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.59-1.28), and total costs (SMD - 1.80; 95% CI - 3.96-0.36). The EM group was associated with longer insertion time (WMD 4.3 min; 95% CI 0.2-8.39), higher patient discomfort level (WMD 1.28; 95% CI 0.46-2.1), and higher recommendation scores (WMD 1.67; 95% CI 0.24-3.10).
conclusionsNo significant difference was found between the two groups in efficacy, safety, and costs. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ( CRD42020172427 ).
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.