ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2026
Gastrostomy tube check radiographs: performance of an alternative diagnostic exam.
Article in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe traditional imaging exam to check a gastrostomy tube (G-tube) used fluoroscopy, which requires the presence of a radiologist. Evaluate the effectiveness of an alternative 2-view abdominal radiograph exam protocol instituted to replace the prior fluoroscopic G-tube contrast check exam and provide 24/7 coverage at 2 affiliated hospitals.
methodsAn alternative 2-view G-tube check radiograph exam following stratified contrast administration was introduced at 2 affiliated children's hospitals. Gastrostomy-tube radiograph exams performed between December 2019 and May 2022 at 2 affiliated hospitals were identified, and a retrospective chart review was performed to delineate exam test yield, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Additional data collected included exam adherence to the protocol, 30-day adverse events, reporting time, and the years of experience of the reporting pediatric radiologist.
resultsA total of 227 exams were performed among 186 patients. The 2-view radiograph protocol was followed in 81.9% (186/227). Additional radiograph views were performed for 18.1% (41/227) of cases, and additional contrast volume for 9.3% (21/227) of cases. A fluoroscopic G-tube contrast check was requested for 7 of 13 indeterminate readings with high clinical suspicion. Following the reclassification of indeterminate exams based on clinical suspicion, exam performance results were as follows: test yield, 94.3%; accuracy, 97.8%; sensitivity, 90.0%; specificity, 98.2%; PPV, 69.2%; NPV, 99.5%. The 1 false negative exam required a second hospital visit 7 days after the initial exam to detect and correct G-tube malposition. Reporting time under 1 hour occurred in 79.7% (181/227). Delayed radiology reporting in 1 patient led to endoscopic confirmation of abnormal G-tube alignment. Furthermore, 5.7% (13/227) exams were reported as indeterminate, adding a median time delay of 40 minutes (interquartile range, 90). Indeterminate exam reporting did not correlate with the years of experience of the reporting pediatric radiologist (
conclusionThis alternative diagnostic exam performed well in terms of high test yield, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and NPV. The exam mostly followed protocol, allowed for the timely and safe resumption of G-tube use, and provided the remote coverage needed for a new satellite hospital. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This diagnostic radiograph exam replaced the on-site fluoroscopic exam as the initial imaging exam for G-tube checking in our pediatric population.
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.