Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35956316›Full record

ArticleNutrients2022

Blenderised Tube Feeds vs. Commercial Formula: Which Is Better for Gastrostomy-Fed Children?

Neha Chandrasekar, Kate Dehlsen, Steven T Leach, Usha Krishnan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. The evolution of nutrition management in children with severe neurological impairment with a focus on cerebral palsy.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

4 authors.

Neha ChandrasekarSchool of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6484-331X
Kate DehlsenDepartment of Nutrition and Dietetics, Sydney Children's Hospital, Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia.
Steven T LeachSchool of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
Usha KrishnanSchool of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.

Funding

Nestle
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Blenderised tube feeds (BTF) have become a popular alternative to commercial formula (CF) for enterally fed children. This study sought to compare gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, GI inflammation, and stool microbiome composition between children receiving BTF or CF. This prospective cohort study involved 41 gastrostomy-fed children, aged 2-18 years, receiving either BTF (

Indexed as

Enteral NutritionGastrointestinal DiseasesAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolGastrostomyHumansLeukocyte L1 Antigen ComplexProspective StudiesQuality of LifeLeukocyte L1 Antigen Complexblended tube feedingcommercial formulaenteral feedinggastrostomygut microbiomepaediatrics

Identifiers

PMID35956316
PMCPMC9370549

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.