ArticleResearch square2024
G-tube contrast check: Transition from fluoroscopy to abdominal radiographs.
Article in Research square, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Reports of radiographic exam evaluation for G-tube malposition in children are limited. Objective: Evaluate effectiveness of a new 2-view abdominal radiograph exam protocol instituted to provide 24/7 coverage at 2 affiliated hospitals and replace the prior fluoroscopic G-tube contrast check exam. Materials and Methods: G-tube radiographic exams performed between December 2019 and May 2022 at 2 affiliated hospitals were identified and retrospective chart review was performed to delineate exam test yield, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity. Additional data collected included exam adherence to protocol, years of experience of the reporting pediatric radiologist, reporting time, and 30-day adverse events. Results: 227 exams were performed in 186 patients. 2-view radiograph protocol was followed in 81.9% (186/227); Additional radiograph views were performed in 18.1% (41/227); additional contrast volume in 9.3% (21/227). Reporting time under 1 hour occurred in 79.7% (181/227). 5.7% (13/227) exams were reported as indeterminate adding a median time delay of 40 minutes (IQR 90). Indeterminate exam reporting did not correlate with years of experience of the reporting pediatric radiologist (p=0.19); reporting time over 1 hour occurred more often in the after-hours group (p= 0.032). Fluoroscopic G-tube contrast check was requested in 8 of 13 indeterminate readings. Following reclassification of indeterminate exams based on clinical suspicion, test performance: yield 94.3%, accuracy 97.3%, sensitivity 81.8%, specificity 98.2%, PPV 69.2%, NPV 99.1%. Conclusion: This new diagnostic exam performed well with high test yield, accuracy, specificity and negative predictive value. The exam mostly followed protocol, allowed timely resumption of G-tube use, and provided a needed 24/7 remote coverage option for the new affiliated hospital.
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.