ArticleNursing in critical care2026
Accuracy of Bedside Methods for Preliminary Nasoenteric Tube Tip Localization in Intensive Care: A Prospective Diagnostic Study.
Article in Nursing in critical care, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPostpyloric nasoenteric feeding reduces feeding intolerance and is recommended for critically ill patients. However, reliable confirmation of tip location remains challenging. Although radiography is the pre-feeding gold standard, repeated use of radiography during insertion is impractical in resource-limited intensive care units (ICUs).
aimThe aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of five bedside methods for preliminary nasoenteric tube tip localization against radiography. Secondary objectives included safety assessment and determining the optimal cut-off for pH difference in aspirate. STUDY
designThis prospective, blinded diagnostic accuracy study was conducted in a tertiary ICU following the STARD 2015 guidelines, using a two-stage assessment procedure: initial gastric verification followed by postpyloric advancement. All participants underwent five index tests performed by a trained senior nurse: pH difference in aspirate (comparing gastric and post-advancement aspirate), pH testing of aspirate, auscultation of bubbling sounds, palpation for bubbling sounds and ultrasonographic gastric antrum assessment. Abdominal radiography served as the reference standard. The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated for each test with pairwise comparisons. Adverse events were monitored within 24 h. The optimal pH difference in aspirate cut-off was determined using Youden's index.
resultsBetween October 2021 and January 2022, 60 patients were enrolled; postpyloric placement was confirmed in 47 (78.3%). Palpation for bubbling sounds (AUC 0.902), ultrasonographic gastric antrum assessment (AUC 0.863) and pH difference in aspirate (cut-off ≥ 1, AUC 0.808) demonstrated superior accuracy compared with auscultation (AUC 0.622) and pH testing of aspirate (AUC 0.586) (all p < 0.05). The optimal pH difference in aspirate cut-off was ≥ 1, yielding 100% sensitivity. No adverse events occurred.
conclusionPalpation for bubbling sounds, ultrasonographic gastric antrum assessment and pH difference in aspirate are accurate bedside methods that can guide nurse-led nasoenteric tube placement, reduce interim radiographs and reserve mandatory confirmation for pre-feeding safety checks. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study validates three accurate bedside methods-pH difference in aspirate, palpation for bubbling sounds and ultrasonographic gastric antrum assessment-that can be integrated into nurse-led protocols to guide nasoenteric tube placement in resource-limited ICUs, reducing reliance on interim radiographs while maintaining patient safety.
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.