ArticleGastroenterology report2023
Routine nasogastric tube placement in patients with small esophageal perforation after endoscopic foreign body removal may be unnecessary: a propensity score matching analysis.
Article in Gastroenterology report, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Nasogastric tube (NGT) placement is part of the post-operative management of upper gastrointestinal perforation, but its routine use in esophageal perforation (EP) caused by foreign bodies remains unclear. The purpose of this research was to investigate the necessity for routine NGT placement in patients with EP after endoscopic foreign body removal. Methods: A total of 323 patients diagnosed with EP caused by foreign bodies at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University between January 2012 and December 2021 were included in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into the NGT group and the non-NGT group according to whether or not NGT placement was performed. The perforation healing rate, post-operative adverse events, hospital stay, and death rate were analysed using a 1:1 propensity score matching model. Results: Before matching, there were 263 patients in the NGT group and 60 patients in the non-NGT group. There were significant differences in the time to treatment, infection, albumin, and types of endoscopy between the two groups, while the length of hospital stay in the NGT group was significantly longer than that in the non-NGT group. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 48 pairs of patients were matched between the two groups. The perforation healing rate, post-operative adverse events, length of hospital stay, and death rate did not show significant differences between the two groups. Conclusions: For patients with small EP caused by foreign bodies, routine NGT placement after endoscopic foreign body removal may be unnecessary.
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.