SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2024
Comparative Analysis of Early Versus Late Feeding Post-percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Digestive diseases and sciences, 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.
- Trends in Inpatient Health Care Utilization for Children with Feeding Difficulties.The Journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn clinical practice, tube feedings have been delayed after the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement. Previous studies, including a meta-analysis in 2008, have shown that it is safe to start tube feeding ≤ 4 h of PEG tube placement. However, it is still a common practice to delay the initiation of tube feeding up to 24 h after PEG tube placement. We have performed an updated analysis of studies comparing early versus delayed tube feedings following PEG placement.
methodsMajor databases like PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched in June 2022 for randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies reporting on comparative outcomes with early (< or = 4 h) versus delayed (> 4 h) feeding after PEG tube placement in adult patients. The primary outcomes in our study include complication rates and mortality rates within 72 h of the procedure. The outcomes were reported as pooled odds ratio (95% confidence interval (CI) (Moole et al. in Indian J Gastroenterol. 35:323-330, 2016), p value, I
resultsA total of 212 individuals in the early feeding group and 215 individuals in the late feeding group were analyzed from six studies. The pooled odds ratio of total complication events between early and late feed groups was 0.86 (CI 0.51-1.45, p = 0.58). The pooled odds ratio of fever, vomiting, and local infection was 0.94 (CI 0.186-4.74, p = 0.94), 1.0 (CI 0.38-2.65, p = 0.9), and 1.25 (0.36-4.3, p = 0.72), respectively, between early and late feeding post-PEG tube placement. In conclusion, this meta-analysis confirms that early feeding ≤ 4 h after PEG placement does not increase the odds of poor outcomes or mortality, and it is a well-tolerated, safe, and effective alternative to delayed feeding. Furthermore, early feeding may decrease hospital stays and healthcare costs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39368005What 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.