Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37596615›Full record

ReviewCritical care (London, England)2023

Nasogastric tube insertion length measurement and tip verification in adults: a narrative review.

Kurt Boeykens, Tom Holvoet, Ivo Duysburgh

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kurt BoeykensNutrition Support Team, VITAZ Hospital, Moerlandstraat 1, 9100, Sint-Niklaas, Belgium. Kurtboeykens@telenet.be.
Tom HolvoetNutrition Support Team, VITAZ Hospital, Moerlandstraat 1, 9100, Sint-Niklaas, Belgium.
Ivo DuysburghNutrition Support Team, VITAZ Hospital, Moerlandstraat 1, 9100, Sint-Niklaas, Belgium.
AZ Sint-Lucas · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nasogastric feeding tube insertion is a common but invasive procedure most often blindly placed by nurses in acute and chronic care settings. Although usually not harmful, serious and fatal complications with misplacement still occur and variation in practice still exists. These tubes can be used for drainage or administration of fluids, drugs and/or enteral feeding. During blind insertion, it is important to achieve correct tip position of the tube ideally reaching the body of the stomach. If the insertion length is too short, the tip and/or distal side-openings at the end of the tube can be located in the esophagus increasing the risk of aspiration (pneumonia). Conversely, when the insertion length is too long, the tube might kink in the stomach, curl upwards into the esophagus or enter the duodenum. Studies have demonstrated that the most frequently used technique to determine insertion length (the nose-earlobe-xiphoid method) is too short a distance; new safer methods should be used and further more robust evidence is needed. After blind placement, verifying correct gastric tip positioning is of major importance to avoid serious and sometimes lethal complications.

Indexed as

Enteral NutritionIntubation, GastrointestinalAdultDrainageHumansLong-Term CareEnteral nutritionGastrointestinal intubationNasogastric tubePatient safetyTube feeding

Identifiers

PMID37596615
PMCPMC10439641
OpenAlexW4385978318

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.