ArticleGut and liver2024
A Multicenter Survey of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy in 2019 at Korean Medical Institutions.
Article in Gut and liver, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy an Innocent Procedure? A Retrospective Single-Center Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aims: : This study aimed to review the indications, methods, cooperation, complications, and outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). Methods: : Questionnaires were sent to 200 hospitals, of which 62 returned their questionnaires, with a response rate of approximately 30%. Descriptive statistics were calculated to analyze the responses to the questionnaires. Results: : In 2019, a total of 1,052 PEGs were performed in 1,017 patients at 62 hospitals. The main group who underwent PEG was older adult patients with brain disease, particularly stroke. Nutritional supply was an important purpose of the PEG procedure. "The pull method" was the most commonly used for initial PEG insertion. The complications related to PEG were mostly mild, with leakage being the most common. Patients who underwent PEG procedures were primarily educated regarding the post-procedure management and complications related to PEG. Preoperative meetings were skipped at >50% of the institutions. Regarding the cooperation between the nutrition support team (NST) and the physician performing PEG, few endoscopists answered that they cooperated with NST before and after PEG. Moreover, the rate of NST certification obtained by physicians performing PEG and the frequency of attendance at NST-related conferences were relatively low. Conclusions: : This study shows a similar trend to that found in the previous PEG guidelines. However, it covers new aspects, including team-based work for PEG procedure, nutrition support, and education for patients and guardians. Therefore, each medical institution needs to select an appropriate method considering the medical environment and doctor's abilities.
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.