Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33593416›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2021

Can they stomach it? Parent and practitioner acceptability of a trial comparing gastric residual volume measurement versus no gastric residual volume in UK NNU and PICUs: a feasibility study.

Elizabeth Deja, Louise Roper, Lyvonne N Tume, Jon Dorling, Chris Gale, Barbara Arch, Lynne Latten, Nazima Pathan, Helen Eccleson, Helen Hickey and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Protocol for a Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate Not Routinely Measuring Gastric Residual Volume to Guide Enteral Feeding Versus Routine Measurement in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Children (GASTRIC-PICU).Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

15 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Elizabeth DejaInstitute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. E.deja@liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2168-7994
Louise RoperInstitute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Lyvonne N TumeSchool of Health & Society, University of Salford, Manchester, M6 6PU, UK.
Jon DorlingDivision of Pediatrics and Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Chris GaleNeonatal Medicine, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital campus, London, UK.
Barbara ArchMedicines for Children Clinical Trials Unit, Clinical Trials Research Centre, University of Liverpool Institute of Child Health Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Lynne LattenDepartment of Dietetics, Alder Hey Children's Hospital, Liverpool, UK.
Nazima PathanPaediatric Intensive Care, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital Cambridge, Campbridge, UK.
Helen EcclesonMedicines for Children Clinical Trials Unit, Clinical Trials Research Centre, University of Liverpool Institute of Child Health Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Helen HickeyMedicines for Children Clinical Trials Unit, Clinical Trials Research Centre, University of Liverpool Institute of Child Health Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Jenny PrestonInstitute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Anne BeisselNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Hôpital Femme Mère Enfant, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon-Bron, France.
Izabela AndrzejewskaNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK.
Frédéric V VallaFaculty of Health & Applied Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
Kerry WoolfallInstitute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
University of Liverpool · GBChelsea and Westminster Hospital · GBDalhousie University · CAHôpital Femme Mère Enfant · FRInserm · FRUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Salford · GB

Funding

the UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme (16/94/02)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRoutine measurement of gastric residual volume (GRV) to guide feeding in neonatal and paediatric intensive care is widespread. However, this practice is not evidence based and may cause harm. As part of a feasibility study, we explored parent and practitioner views on the acceptability of a trial comparing GRV measurement or no GRV measurement.

methodsA mixed-methods study involving interviews and focus groups with practitioners and interviews with parents with experience of tube feeding in neonatal and/or paediatric intensive care. A voting system recorded closed question responses during practitioner data collection, enabling the collection of quantitative and qualitative data. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics.

resultsWe interviewed 31 parents and nine practitioners and ran five practitioner focus groups (n=42). Participants described how the research question was logical, and the intervention would not be invasive and potential benefits of not withholding the child's feeds. However, both groups held concerns about the potential risk of not measuring GRV, including delayed diagnosis of infection and gut problems, increased risk of vomiting into lungs and causing discomfort or pain. Parent's views on GRV measurement and consent decision making were influenced by their views on the importance of feeding in the ICU, their child's prognosis and associated comorbidities or complications.

conclusionsThe majority of parents and practitioners viewed the proposed trial as acceptable. Potential concerns and preferences were identified that will need careful consideration to inform the development of the proposed trial protocol and staff training.

Indexed as

AcceptabilityFeasibilityGastric residual volumeIntensive care

Identifiers

PMID33593416
PMCPMC7885383
OpenAlexW3133152905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.