Trial reportFrontiers in nutrition2025
Comparison of electromagnetic navigation-guided and conventional blind nasojejunal tube placement in mechanically ventilated patients: a prospective non-randomized controlled study with two stages.
Trial report in Frontiers in nutrition, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: During enteral nutrition support for mechanically ventilated patients, nasojejunal tube (NJT) placement encounters significant challenges in operational efficiency due to the lack of highly effective bedside techniques. Compared to the conventional blind insertion method for NJT placement (CBN-P), the electromagnetic navigation-guided placement technique (ENG-P) potentially offers superior advantages in terms of safety, procedural efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and the timeliness of clinical decision-making. However, the existing body of research in this area remains limited. Objective: The study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy of ENG-P vs. CBN-P in mechanically ventilated patients. Methods: This was a prospective, non-randomized, two-phase cohort study. Patients requiring NJT placement were divided into control (CBN-P) and intervention (ENG-P) groups, enrolled from December 2024 to February 2025 and April to June 2025, respectively. Primary and secondary outcomes included first-attempt success rate, procedure duration, reinsertion frequency, patient discomfort, operator satisfaction, economic costs, clinical decision-making efficiency, and complication rates. Results: The ENG-P cohort demonstrated statistically superior performance compared to the CBN-P group, with significantly higher first-attempt success rates (81.36% vs. 65.85%, Conclusion: ENG-P technique offers significant advantages over CBN-P, including higher first-attempt success rates, shorter procedure durations, fewer reinsertions, and lower healthcare costs. Additionally, it enables earlier enteral nutrition initiation while maintaining a favorable safety profile, making it the optimal choice for bedside NJT placement in ICU settings. Clinical trial registration: http://www.chictr.org.cn, identifier ChiCTR2500108091.
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.