ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
A dedicated feeding tube clinic reduces emergency department utilization for gastrostomy tube complications.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEnteral access is required for a variety of reasons from neuromuscular disorders to dysphagia. Gastrostomy tubes (GTs) can be placed endoscopically, surgically, or radiographically and complications include infection, bleeding, leakage and unintentional removal. Routine post-procedural follow-up is limited by inconsistent guidelines and management by different specialty teams. We established a dedicated GT clinic to provide continuity of care and prophylactic GT exchange. We hypothesized that patients followed in the GT clinic would have reduced Emergency Department (ED) utilization.
methodsA retrospective review of patients who underwent GT placement from January 2010 to January 2020 was conducted. Baseline demographics, indications for GT placement, number and reason for ED visits and utilization of a multidisciplinary GT clinic were studied.
resultsA total of 97 patients were included. The most common indication for placement was dysphagia (88, 91%) and the most common primary diagnosis was head and neck malignancy (51, 51%). The GT clinic is a multidisciplinary clinic staffed by surgeons and residents, dieticians, and wound care specialists and cared for 16 patients in this study. Three patients (19%) in the GT clinic group required ED visits compared to 44 (54%) in the standard of care (SOC) group (p < 0.05). There was an average of 0.9 ED visits per patient (range 0-7) in the GT clinic group vs 1.6 ED visits per patient (range 0-20) in the SOC group (p = 0.34). Feeding tubes were prophylactically exchanged an average of 7 times per patient in the GT clinic group vs 3 times per patient in the SOC group (p < 0.05).
conclusionA multidisciplinary clinic dedicated to GT care limits ED visits for associated complications by more than 50%. Follow-up in a dedicated clinic with prophylactic tube exchange decreases ED visits and should be considered at facilities that care for patients with GTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35132448What 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.