Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33536570›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2021

Gastric-tube versus post-pyloric feeding in critical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of pulmonary aspiration- and nutrition-related outcomes.

Yue Liu, Yanling Wang, Bohan Zhang, Jiani Wang, Liu Sun, Qian Xiao

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Constipation in critically ill adults.World journal of gastrointestinal pathophysiology · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yue LiuSchool of Nursing, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100069, China.
Yanling WangSchool of Nursing, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100069, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1295-4245
Bohan ZhangSchool of Nursing, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100069, China.
Jiani WangSchool of Nursing, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100069, China.
Liu SunSchool of Nursing, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100069, China.
Qian XiaoSchool of Nursing, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100069, China. julia.xiao@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5657-2863
Capital Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gastric-tube feeding and post-pyloric feeding are the two most common forms of enteral nutrition, each with advantages and disadvantages. To explore the effects and safety of gastric-tube versus post-pyloric feeding in critical patients by comparing pulmonary aspiration- and nutrition-related outcomes, a meta-analysis was conducted. It was performed by systematically searching the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, BMJ best practice, ProQuest dissertations and theses, CINAHL, web of science, SinoMed, WANFANG, CNKI, and the platform of clinical trial registration. The databases were searched through December 31, 2019, and studies were evaluated by two independent researchers. Review Manager software was used for data analysis. We included 41 studies conducted in ten countries and involving 3248 participants. Meta-analysis showed that post-pyloric feeding had a lower incidence rate of pulmonary aspiration, gastric reflux, and pneumonia (P < 0.001, all), less incidence of gastrointestinal complications including vomiting, nausea, diarrhea, abdominal distension, high gastric residual volume, and constipation (P < 0.05, all), more optimal gastrointestinal nutrition including the percentage of total nutrition provided to the patient, the time to tolerate enteral nutrition, the time required to start feeding and the time required to reach nutritional targets (P < 0.05, all), shorter length of mechanical ventilation, stay in ICU and stay in hospital (P < 0.001, all), compared with gastric-tube feeding. No significant differences were shown in the time of gastrointestinal function recovery, mortality, or hospitalization expenses between the two feeding routes. This review provides evidence that post-pyloric feeding appears to be the safer and more effective choice, as compared to gastric-tube feeding among critical patients.

Indexed as

Enteral NutritionPneumoniaHumansNutritional StatusRespiration, ArtificialStomach

Identifiers

PMID33536570
OpenAlexW3126468484

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.