ArticleJournal of intensive care medicine2022
Percutaneous Ultrasound Guided Gastrostomy Tube Placement: A Prospective Cohort Trial.
Article in Journal of intensive care medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging of pediatric gastrostomy tube malposition: Pearls and pitfalls.World journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Percutaneous Radiologic Gastrostomy Tube Placement Techniques.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2025Review
- Length of Stay and Hospital Cost Reductions After Implementing Bedside Percutaneous Ultrasound Gastrostomy (PUG) in a Critical Care Unit.Journal of intensive care medicine · 2022Article
- Percutaneous ultrasound gastrostomy (PUG) overview updates: response to an overview of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement in the intensive care unit.Journal of thoracic disease · 2022Article
- Response to the author on "Journal of thoracic disease · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the safety and efficacy of percutaneous ultrasound guided gastrostomy (PUG) tube placement with traditional fluoroscopic guided percutaneous gastrostomy tube placement (PRG).
methodsA prospective, observational, non-randomized cohort trial was performed comparing 25 consecutive patients who underwent PUG placement between April 2020 and August 2020 with 25 consecutive patients who underwent PRG placement between February 2020 and March 2020. Procedure time, sedation, analgesia requirements, and complications were compared between the two groups in non-inferiority analysis.
resultsTechnical success rates were 96% in both groups (24/25) of procedures. Ninety-two percent of patients in the PUG cohort were admitted to the ICU at the time of G-tube request. Aside from significantly more COVID-19 patients in the PUG group (
conclusionPUG is similar in terms of complications to PRG gastrostomy tube placement and a safe method for gastrostomy tube placement in the critically ill with the added benefits of bedside placement, elimination of radiation exposure, and expanded and improved access to care.
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.