ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2022
Gastrostomy and congenital anomalies: a European population-based study.
Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Longitudinal trends of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in geriatric hospital units in Germany.European geriatric medicine · 2026Article
- Aging and rare diseases: from epidemiology to a call to action.European geriatric medicine · 2026Article
- Prevalence of Gastrostomy-Related Procedures in Polish Children: A Longitudinal Nationwide Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Risk factors for hospital admission and length of stay for children with and without congenital anomalies: a EUROlinkCAT cohort study.BMJ paediatrics open · 2025Article
- Health outcomes and drug utilisation in children with Noonan syndrome: a European cohort study.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Article
- Educational outcomes of children with major congenital anomalies: Study protocol for a population-based cohort study using linked hospital and education data from England.NIHR open research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 13 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo report and compare the proportion of children with and without congenital anomalies undergoing gastrostomy for tube feeding in their first 5 years.
methodsA European, population-based data-linkage cohort study (EUROlinkCAT). Children up to 5 years of age registered in nine EUROCAT registries (national and regional) in six countries and children without congenital anomalies (reference children) living in the same geographical areas were included. Data on hospitalisation and surgical procedures for all children were obtained by electronic linkage to hospital databases.
resultsThe study included 91 504 EUROCAT children and 1 960 272 reference children. Overall, 1200 (1.3%, 95% CI 1.2% to 1.6%) EUROCAT children and 374 (0.016%, 95% CI 0.009% to 0.026%) reference children had a surgical code for gastrostomy within the first 5 years of life. There were geographical variations across Europe with higher rates in Northern Europe compared with Southern Europe. Around one in four children with Cornelia de Lange syndrome and Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome had a gastrostomy. Among children with structural anomalies, those with oesophageal atresia had the highest proportion of gastrostomy (15.9%).
conclusionsThis study including almost 2 million reference children in Europe found that only 0.016% of these children had a surgery code for gastrostomy before age 5 years. The children with congenital anomalies were on average 80 times more likely to need a gastrostomy before age 5 years than children without congenital anomalies. More than two-thirds of gastrostomy procedures performed within the first 5 years of life were in children with congenital anomalies.
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.