SynthesisNutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia2023
The effect of oral refeeding compared with nasogastric refeeding on the quality of care for patients hospitalised with an eating disorder: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effect of oral refeeding compared with nasogastric refeeding on the quality of care for patients hospitalised with an eating disorder: A systematic review.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2023Pooled it
- Enteral Tube Nutrition in Anorexia Nervosa and Atypical Anorexia Nervosa and Outcomes: A Systematic Scoping Review.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Nasogastric Tube Feeding in Anorexia Nervosa: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis on Clinical Efficacy and Treatment Satisfaction.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Comparison of metabolic parameters between oral and total parenteral nutrition in children with severe eating disorders.Fukushima journal of medical science · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this systematic review was to compare the benefits and harms of nasogastric and oral-based refeeding on the quality of care, including effectiveness, safety, and patient experience, for patients hospitalised with an eating disorder.
methodsA systematic search for studies measuring comparative data between nasogastric and oral refeeding methods was conducted in August 2021. Title and abstracts and remaining full texts were screened by both authors. Risk of bias was evaluated using the PEDro scale, and overall quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation narrative synthesis.
resultsSeven studies (one randomised controlled trial, five non-randomised studies of interventions, and one qualitative study) with 917 participants were included. There was low certainty evidence that nasogastric refeeding resulted in no difference or a small increase in weekly weight gain, and moderate certainty of greater total weight gain, and very low certainty of increased length of stay compared to oral refeeding. There was no difference or a small increase in discharge weight and body mass index with nasogastric refeeding compared to oral refeeding. No serious adverse events were reported.
conclusionPatients selected for nasogastric refeeding have a longer duration of illness and lower admission weight, making it difficult to determine which refeeding approach is superior. However, the lack of clear difference in weekly weight gain and the lack of reported harms suggests that other factors such as the normalisation of eating behaviour may be taken into account when choosing the most appropriate refeeding method.
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.