Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40684043›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2025

Aspiration risk prediction models in patients with nasogastric enteral nutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Juan Chen, Yushuang Su, Tianlong Li, Xiaorong Mao, Qinghua Jiang, Qin Yang, Qing Wen, Zaichun Pu, Mengting Liu

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

9 authors.

Juan Chen *Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 32, West Second Section, 1st Ring Road, Qingyang District, Chengdu, 610072, Sichuan Province, China.
Yushuang Su *Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 32, West Second Section, 1st Ring Road, Qingyang District, Chengdu, 610072, Sichuan Province, China.
Tianlong LiSichuan Provincial People's Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 32, West Second Section, 1st Ring Road, Qingyang District, Chengdu, 610072, Sichuan Province, China. ajay1989@126.com.
Xiaorong MaoSichuan Provincial People's Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 32, West Second Section, 1st Ring Road, Qingyang District, Chengdu, 610072, Sichuan Province, China.
Qinghua JiangSichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Qin YangSichuan Provincial People's Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 32, West Second Section, 1st Ring Road, Qingyang District, Chengdu, 610072, Sichuan Province, China.
Qing WenSichuan Provincial People's Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 32, West Second Section, 1st Ring Road, Qingyang District, Chengdu, 610072, Sichuan Province, China.
Zaichun PuXindu District People's Hospital of Chengdu, Chengdu, China.
Mengting LiuSichuan Provincial People's Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 32, West Second Section, 1st Ring Road, Qingyang District, Chengdu, 610072, Sichuan Province, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, numerous researchers have developed risk prediction models for aspiration in patients with nasogastric enteral nutrition (EN). Nevertheless, comprehensive and systematic comparative studies are lacking. This study systematically review and evaluate the studies on aspiration risk prediction models in patients with nasogastric EN. A computer search was conducted from the database establishment to May 10, 2025. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) evaluation tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies, and the meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 17 software to analyze the prediction factors included in the models and the area under the curve (AUC) values of the validated models. Eleven studies were included, with a total of 22 aspiration risk prediction models for patients with nasogastric EN. The AUC ranged from 0.809 to 0.992. The PROBAST evaluation results showed that all 11 included studies had a high risk of bias. The most common predictive factors included the number of diseases, history of aspiration, use of sedative, depth of tube placement, amount of gastric residue, APACHE II score, consciousness disturbance, nutritional risk, age. The pooled AUC value of the four validated models was 0.92 (95% confidence interval: 0.90-0.93), indicating an excellent level of discrimination. The study protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42024594672).

Indexed as

Enteral NutritionIntubation, GastrointestinalRespiratory AspirationHumansRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsEnteral nutritionMeta-analysisNasogastricPrediction modelsRespiratory aspirationSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40684043
PMCPMC12276240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.