Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37187550›Full record

ArticleGastroenterology research2023

Outcomes and Complications of Radiological Gastrostomy vs. Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy for Enteral Feeding: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Zohaib Ahmed, Umair Iqbal, Muhammad Aziz, Syeda Faiza Arif, Joyce Badal, Umer Farooq, Wade Lee-Smith, Manesh Kumar Gangwani, Faisal Kamal, Abdallah Kobeissy and 5 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Gastroenterology research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

15 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Zohaib AhmedDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.
Umair IqbalDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA, USA.
Muhammad AzizDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.
Syeda Faiza ArifDow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.
Joyce BadalUniversity of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, Toledo, OH, USA.
Umer FarooqDepartment of Internal Medicine, Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, NY, USA.
Wade Lee-SmithUniversity of Toledo Libraries, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.
Manesh Kumar GangwaniDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.
Faisal KamalDivision of Gastroenterology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abdallah KobeissyDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.
Asif MahmoodDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.
Ali NawrasDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.
Harshit S KharaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA, USA.
Bradley D ConferDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA, USA.
Douglas G AdlerCenter for Advanced Therapeutic Endoscopy (CATE), Centura Health, Porter Adventist Hospital, Peak Gastroenterology, Denver, CO, USA.
University of Toledo · USGeisinger Medical Center · USChina First Heavy Industries (China) · CNDow University of Health Sciences · PKPorter Adventist Hospital · USRochester General Hospital · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) are commonly utilized to establish access to enteral nutrition. However, data comparing the outcomes of PEG vs. PRG are conflicting. Therefore, we aimed to conduct an updated systemic review and meta-analysis comparing PRG and PEG outcomes. Methods: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were searched until February 24, 2023. Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, tube leakage, tube dislodgement, perforation, and peritonitis. Secondary outcomes included bleeding, infectious complications, and aspiration pneumonia. All analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software. Results: The initial search revealed 872 studies. Of these, 43 of these studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in the final meta-analysis. Of 471,208 total patients, 194,399 received PRG and 276,809 received PEG. PRG was associated with higher odds of 30-day mortality when compared to PEG (odds ratio (OR): 1.205, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.015 - 1.430, I Conclusion: PEG is associated with lower 30-day mortality, tube leakage, and tube dislodgement rates than PRG.

Indexed as

Enteral feedingPercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomyPercutaneous radiological gastrostomy

Identifiers

PMID37187550
PMCPMC10181338
OpenAlexW4367301076

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.