Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39594864›Full record

ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Efficacy and Safety of Orogastric vs. Nasogastric Tube Feeding in Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Huazi Liu, Qiang Fei, Tianming Yuan

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Huazi LiuDepartment of Neonatology, Children's Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, National Clinical Research Center for Child Health and Disease, Hangzhou 310052, China.
Qiang FeiDepartment of Neonatology, Children's Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, National Clinical Research Center for Child Health and Disease, Hangzhou 310052, China.
Tianming YuanDepartment of Neonatology, Children's Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, National Clinical Research Center for Child Health and Disease, Hangzhou 310052, China.ORCID 0000-0003-2593-606X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnteral nutrition can be delivered to the stomach using nasogastric or orogastric tubes, with each route having advantages and disadvantages. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of these methods on growth, development, and the incidence of adverse outcomes.

methodsThis analysis included studies that enrolled preterm infants who received nasogastric or orogastric tube feeding. We searched databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Only randomized controlled trials were selected. We used version 2 of the Cochrane tool to assess the risk of bias in randomized trials and Review Manager 5.4 software to perform the meta-analysis.

resultsSix studies involving 265 preterm infants were included. The meta-analysis showed that orogastric tube feeding took significantly longer to establish full enteral tube feeding compared to nasogastric tube feeding (MD = 1.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.99-2.26, Z = 5.02,

conclusionsPreterm infants fed via nasogastric tubes took less time to reach full enteral feeding than those fed via orogastric tubes. Further research is required to evaluate the effect of feeding routes on adverse outcomes.

Indexed as

adverse eventsgrowthmeta-analysisoral/nasal routepreterm infants

Identifiers

PMID39594864
PMCPMC11593126

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.