ArticleCureus2024
The Nasogastric Tube for Adhesional Small Bowel Obstruction: An Analysis of Treatment Effect and Outcomes in a Tertiary Acute General Surgical Unit.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Do nasogastric or nasoenteric tubes improve outcomes from adhesional small bowel obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Safety and Efficacy of Nasogastric Tube Placement Prior to Long Tube Placement for the Conservative Management of Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction: A Retrospective Analysis.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2026Article
- Contemporary diagnosis and management of patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2026Review
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 Nasogastric tubes (NGTs) have long been considered standard practice for the management of adhesional small bowel obstructions (ASBOs). However, the evidence to support the routine use of NGTs in ASBO is sparse. This study aims to review outcomes associated with NGT use in a large tertiary centre. Methods Electronic medical records from patients diagnosed with an ASBO admitted to the acute general surgical unit at John Hunter Hospital between January 2016 and December 2020 were reviewed. Data were analysed to compare outcomes between groups receiving an NGT and those not receiving an NGT. Results A total of 460 admissions based on 387 patients with ASBO were analysed. An NGT was used in 264 (57%) admission episodes. Higher American Society of Anaesthesiologist scores were seen in the NGT group (p=0.0265). Surgical intervention was required in 94 (36%) patients who had an NGT inserted compared to 13 (7%) patients without an NGT (p<0.0001). The average length of stay was 6.9 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.1-7.6) in the NGT group versus 3.2 days (95% CI, 2.7-3.7) in the no-NGT group (p<0.0001). The mean time to surgery was 58.8 hours (95% CI, 47.4-70.3) in the NGT group versus 19.4 hours (95% CI, 12.2-26.5) in the no-NGT group (p=0.0163). Patients in the NGT group were more likely to undergo bowel resection (8% versus 2%; p=0.023). Conclusions This five-year retrospective study demonstrates that patients with an NGT for ASBO exhibited poorer outcomes than those without one. While these results may reflect a selection bias towards patients with greater disease severity, they highlight the need for further evaluation through a randomised controlled trial.
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.