ArticleBMC gastroenterology2022
Gastric ultrasound for feeding intolerance in the ICU: close but not quite right.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 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.
- Beyond Description: A Functional GIUS-Based Algorithm for Enteral Feeding Decisions in the ICU.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Gastric Cross-Sectional Area to Predict Gastric Intolerance in Critically Ill Patients: The Sono-ICU Prospective Observational Bicenter Study.Critical care explorations · 2023Article
- Gastric Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Acutely and Critically Ill Children (POCUS-ped): A Scoping Review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the January 2021 issue of BMC Gastroenterology, Elmokadem et al. report their findings on the use of gastric ultrasound (GUS) for the evaluation of feeding intolerance-defined as high gastric residual volume-in critically ill patients. We voice in this correspondence our concerns regarding certain methodological flaws and believe the study results should be interpreted with caution. The authors applied a model unvalidated for non-clear fluids as enteral feeding, the scanning protocol was not clearly described and essential anatomical landmarks required for correct interpretation are not visible in the presented images. Additionally, since GUS was not compared to a gold standard, we believe the authors' conclusion may be overoptimistic and does not undoubtedly answer the primary outcome.
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.