Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33389006›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2021

Enteral tube feeding of head and neck cancer patients undergoing definitive chemoradiotherapy in the Nordic Countries: Survey of the Scandinavian Society for Head and Neck Oncology.

Taru Ilmarinen, Lalle Hammarstedt-Nordenvall, Leif Bäck, Antti Mäkitie

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 2 countries.

Taru IlmarinenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. taru.t.ilmarinen@hus.fi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8674-6417
Lalle Hammarstedt-NordenvallDivision of Ear, Nose and Throat Diseases, Department of Clinical Sciences, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Leif BäckDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Antti MäkitieDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Karolinska University Hospital · SEUniversity of Helsinki · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe assessed current policies and perceptions of enteral tube feeding in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy (CRT). A web-based survey was used to compare the timing and method of tube feeding within and between the five Nordic countries, covering a population of 27 million.

methodsFrom each of the 21 Nordic university hospitals, one oncologist and one otorhinolaryngology-head and neck (ORL-HN) surgeon responded to a survey. The respondents were asked whether tube insertion before the onset of CRT, or during CRT as required (prophylactic vs. reactive) was preferred. The use of a pretreatment nutritional screening tool and the choice of feeding route (nasogastric vs. gastrostomy tube) were assessed. In total, we analyzed responses from 21 oncologists and 21 ORL-HN surgeons.

resultsA tendency was observed towards decreasing the use of a PEG tube. Of the 21 university hospitals, only 2 (10%) reported using a prophylactic PEG tube in over half of HNC patients undergoing definitive CRT. The preferred method for reactive tube feeding was by a NG tube in 14 of 21 (67%), and by a PEG in 7 of 21 (33%). In general, both oncologists and ORL-HN surgeons were content with their current policy.

conclusionsThe practices for enteral tube feeding in HNC management vary within and between the Nordic countries. We suggest that unified protocols for tube feeding should be developed for this patient population.

Indexed as

Enteral NutritionHead and Neck NeoplasmsChemoradiotherapyGastrostomyHumansIntubation, GastrointestinalNutritional StatusNutrition AssessmentScandinavian and Nordic CountriesSurveys and QuestionnairesChemoradiotherapyEnteral nutritionHead and neck cancerNasogastric tubePercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

Identifiers

PMID33389006
OpenAlexW3118302665

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.