ArticleJGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology2022
Outcomes of push and pull percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placements in 854 patients: A single-center study.
Article in JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Percutaneous Gastrostomies: Associated Complications in PUSH vs. PULL Techniques over 12 Years in a Referral Centre.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- [Gastro-Colo-Cutaneous Fistula Occurring After Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Procedure].The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2024Article
- To push or to pull? A clinical audit on the efficacy and safety of the pull and push percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy techniques in oncological patients.United European gastroenterology journal · 2023Article
- Does enteral nutrition through a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, attenuate Helicobacter pylori colonization?: is it worth mentioning?Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2023Article
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsPercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is indicated for prolonged enteral nutrition. This study aimed to analyze the outcome and to identify potential risk factors for complications in PEG procedures.
methodsA single-center retrospective analysis of the performed PEG procedures during the period January 2010 till January 2020.
resultsA PEG placement procedure was performed in 854 patients (64.1% male) and was successful in 833 (97.5%). In total, 513 push (61.6%) and 320 pull (38.6%) PEGs were placed. The mean age was 60.7 years, and the median follow-up was 267 days. The push PEG was associated with peri-procedural bleeding (
conclusionThe current study showed that the push and pull PEG placements are both safe and feasible procedures, with a low PEG-related mortality. Buried bumpers, infected placement sites, and granulation tissue formation are more often seen in the pull PEG, while the push PEG is associated with periprocedural bleeding and tube dislodgements. These complications should be taken into account and there is a need for a prospective trial to identify superiority between the PEG methods.
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.