ArticlePediatric radiology2021
Cost evaluation of two types of gastrojejunal feeding tubes used in pediatric patients.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient experience and resource use analysis of balloon-retained vs. disc-retained gastro-jejunal tubes in children.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
- Frequency and outcomes of gastrojejunostomy tube replacement in children - a single-centre experience.Pediatric radiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastrojejunal tubes are important feeding devices for children with gastro-esophageal reflux, allowing medication and feeding into the small bowel, and allowing gastric venting to prevent reflux. As with many medical devices, there are multiple manufacturers and designs, including balloon-retained tubes and disc-retained tubes.
objectiveThis study evaluated the cost difference between these two types of gastrojejunal tube. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a 3.5-year retrospective cost evaluation for all pediatric patients undergoing an insertion or change of gastrojejunal tube using a bottom-up micro-costing analysis. We calculated days between encounters and a subsequent cost per day for each patient.
resultsA total of 187 children and adolescents were included, with an average age of 9.2 years. They underwent a total of 1,240 encounters, an average of 6.6 encounters per patient during the study period. A total of 82% of these encounters were related to balloon-retained tubes and 18% to disc-retained tubes. The most common reason for an encounter was a routine change (57%), with mechanical complications accounting for 31%. Disc-retained tubes had a longer period between encounters (117.5 days) than balloon-retained tubes (95 days; P=0.038). However, disc-retained tubes cost 6.9 British pound sterling (GBP) per day, which was significantly higher than balloon-retained tubes at 5.2 GBP per day (P<0.0001).
conclusionDespite being more expensive to purchase, balloon-retained tubes were noted to be the least costly device in a cost-per-day analysis.
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.