Observational studyThe American journal of medicine2022
Nasal Feeding Tubes Are Associated with Fewer Adverse Events than Feeding via Ostomy in Hospitalized Patients Receiving Enteral Nutrition.
Observational study in The American journal of medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term enteral nutrition with a nasogastric tube can be safe and effective: A case report.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2025Article
- Nasogastric and Nasoenteric Tube-Related Incidents: A Cohort Study with Hospitalized Brazilian Older Adults.Florence Nightingale journal of nursing · 2025Article
- Percutaneous gastrostomies in advanced cancer.Porto biomedical journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSurgical feeding ostomies (eg, gastrostomy) have become required by many nursing facilities for all patients receiving enteral nutrition, whether for short- or long-term use. These policies lack supportive evidence. Comparisons of adverse event rates between surgical and natural orifice tubes are few and lacking in the inpatient setting. Additionally, we hypothesize that adverse events related to feeding tubes are underreported. We sought to quantify adverse events to test the relative safety of surgical feeding ostomies and natural orifice (eg. nasogastric or orogastric) feeding tubes in hospitalized patients.
methodsThis was a prospective observational cohort study of enterally fed inpatients using semiweekly focused physical examination, scripted survey, and chart review.
resultsAll tube-fed patients admitted to a large, urban, academic hospital received semiweekly bedside evaluation and chart review over a 9-week period (n = 226 unique patients, mean 6.25 visits each, total 1118 observations). Demographics were comparable between 148 subjects with natural orifice and 113 subjects with surgical feeding tubes. A higher incidence of adverse events was observed with surgical tubes (3.34 vs 1.25 events per 100 subject days, P < .001). Only 50% of all adverse events were documented in the medical record. More patients with surgical tubes were discharged to skilled nursing facilities (58% vs 24%).
conclusionsSurgical feeding tubes are associated with significantly higher in-hospital adverse event rates when compared with natural orifice (nasal or oral) feeding tubes. Policies requiring surgical feeding ostomies should be reevaluated.
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.