SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
Naso-intestinal versus gastric tube for enteral nutrition in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2025. 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.
- Comparison of electromagnetic navigation-guided and conventional blind nasojejunal tube placement in mechanically ventilated patients: a prospective non-randomized controlled study with two stages.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Trial
- Nasogastric vs. nasojejunal feeding in stroke patients under a DRG payment system: balancing clinical benefits and economic costs.Health economics review · 2026Article
- Impact of early post-pyloric feeding during therapeutic hypothermia on outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA systematic appraisal of the comparative efficacy and safety profiles of naso-intestinal tube versus gastric tube feeding in the context of enteral nutrition for mechanically ventilated (MV) patients is imperative. Such an evaluation is essential to inform clinical practice, ensuring that the chosen method of nutritional support is both optimal and safe for this patient population.
methodsWe executed an exhaustive search across PubMed et al. databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that scrutinize the role of naso-intestinal and gastric tubes for mechanically ventilated (MV) patients up to May 30, 2024. The process of study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction was conducted independently by two researchers. RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.
resultsOur meta-analysis included 8 RCTs, published between 1992 and 2018, encompassing a total of 676 MV patients. The results indicated that naso-intestinal tube feeding, compared to gastric tube feeding, was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) [Risk Ratio (RR) = 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.52, 0.92)] and gastric retention (RR = 0.11, 95% CI (0.04, 0.28)). No statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of aspiration (RR = 0.93, 95% CI (0.35, 2.50)) vomiting (RR = 0.70, 95% CI (0.23, 2.08)), abdominal distension (RR = 0.87, 95% CI (0.29, 2.63)), or diarrhea (RR = 1.10, 95% CI (0.77, 1.55)).
conclusionsThe current evidence indicates that naso-intestinal tube feeding is efficacious in lowering the incidence of VAP and gastric retention among MV patients, without a corresponding escalation in the risk of adverse events, including aspiration, vomiting, abdominal distension, and diarrhea. These insights significantly augment the existing corpus of knowledge pertaining to the optimization of enteral nutrition strategies for patients on mechanical ventilation.
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.