Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35165940›Full record

ReviewNutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition2022

Synthesis of research on ENFit gastrostomy tubes with potential implications for US patients using these devices.

Suvajyoti Guha, Alexander Herman, Mark Antonino, Joshua S Silverstein, Priya Venkataraman-Rao, Matthew R Myers

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 47% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Suvajyoti GuhaOffice of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7622-2721
Alexander HermanOffice of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8378-8184
Mark AntoninoOffice of Product Evaluation and Quality, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Joshua S SilversteinOffice of Product Evaluation and Quality, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Priya Venkataraman-RaoOffice of Product Evaluation and Quality, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Matthew R MyersOffice of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Center for Devices and Radiological Health · US

Funding

Intramural FDA HHS FD999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Misconnections between enteral devices and other medical devices have been associated with patient death and serious injuries. To minimize such misconnections, the design of connectors on enteral devices has been standardized. The most common adaptation of the standardized enteral connector is called ENFit. Gastrostomy tubes (G-tubes), which may or may not possess the ENFit connector, are increasingly used to deliver commercial and blenderized diets in home settings to enteral device users. To investigate and compare the performance of G-tubes with and without ENFit connectors, research investigations have recently been performed. However, synthesis of such investigations and quantitative discussion of the consequences of transitioning to ENFit-based G-tube devices has not yet occurred. Here we review the research findings from these studies, with data on patient practices from a Mayo Clinic survey, to estimate the impact on tube feeders in home settings of transitioning to ENFit-based G-tube devices. Extrapolating the findings from these studies to US enteral G-tube patients, 1.5%-8.6% of adult patients and 0.2%-1.9% of pediatric patients may experience perceptible slowing in their gravity feeds if using ENFit-based G-tube devices. About 2.5%-8.6% of adult patients and 0.5%-5.5% of pediatric patients (or their caregivers) may need to push with perceptibly more force for syringe push-based feeding using ENFit-based G-tube devices. Lastly, the article offers suggestions for patients and device manufacturers. [Correction added on 2 May 2022, after first online publication: In the preceding sentence, the percentage of adult patients was revised from 2.5%-8.6% to 1.5%-8.6%.].

Indexed as

Enteral NutritionGastrostomyChildFood, FormulatedHumansIntubation, GastrointestinalSyringesblenderized dietsENFitenteral nutritiongastrostromy tubemisconnections

Identifiers

PMID35165940
PMCPMC11472396
OpenAlexW4212782103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.