ArticleHeliyon2024
Comparison of the use of a spiral nasojejunal tube and transendoscopic enteral tubing in washed microbiota transplantation via the mid-gut route.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microbiota transplant therapy in inflammatory bowel disease: advances and mechanistic insights.Gut microbes · 2025Review
- Targeted Therapy for Gut Microbiota: Candidates for a Novel Strategy to Ameliorate Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Microbial biotechnology · 2025Review
- Colonic transendoscopic enteral tubing is revolutionizing intestinal therapeutics, diagnosis, and microbiome research.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Methods for washed microbiota transplantation (WMT) through the mid-gut include transendoscopic enteral tubing (TET) and manual spiral nasojejunal tube (SNT) placement have not been studied. Methods: This prospective interventional study was performed at a single centre. Patients were divided into the SNT and mid-gut TET groups based on their conditions and wishes. In the SNT group, an SNT was passively inserted into the stomach, and abdominal X-rays were taken within 24 h to confirm tube placement in the small intestine. In the mid-gut TET group, mid-gut TET was placed in the small intestine for gastroscopy. Data on the clinical efficacy of WMT, intubation time, cost, overall comfort score, adverse reactions, etc., were collected from the two groups. Results: Sixty-three patients were included in the study (SNT group (n = 40) and mid-gut TET group (n = 23)). The clinical efficacy of WMT in the SNT and mid-gut TET groups was 90 % and 95.7 %, respectively (P = 0.644). Compared with the mid-gut TET group, the SNT group showed a shorter operation time (120 s vs. 258 s, P = 0.001) and a lower average cost (641.7 yuan vs. 1702.1 yuan, P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in the overall comfort score or the incidence of common discomfort symptoms between the two groups. Conclusion: The different implantation methods have different advantages; compared with mid-gut TET placement, manual SNT placement provides some benefits.
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.