ArticleBMJ open2021
Electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of the effects of different types of nasointestinal tube placement techniques for ICU patients: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Pooled it
- Real-time imaging-guided visualization facilitates post-pyloric feeding tube placement in critically ill patients: a prospective randomized controlled study.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Trial
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCurrent evidence supporting the utility of electromagnetic (EM)-guided method as the preferred technique for nasoenteral feeding tube placement is limited. We plan to provide a meta-analysis to compare the performance of EM-guided versus endoscopic placement. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Randomised controlled trials evaluating EM-guided versus endoscopic placement will be searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL from database inception to 30 September 2020. Data on study design, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcomes will be extracted. Primary outcomes to be assessed are complications. Secondary outcomes include procedure success rate, total procedure time, patient recommendation, length of hospital stay and mortality. Study quality will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data will be combined with a random effects model. The results will be presented as a risk ratio for dichotomous data and weighted mean difference for continuous data. Publication bias will be visualised using funnel plots. We will quantify the effect of potential effect modifiers by meta-regression if appropriate. The quality of evidence will be evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will not use primary data, and therefore formal ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and committee conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: 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.