ArticleHealth economics review2026
Nasogastric vs. nasojejunal feeding in stroke patients under a DRG payment system: balancing clinical benefits and economic costs.
Article in Health economics review, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUnder the DRG payment system, the choice of enteral nutrition for stroke patients requires balancing clinical efficacy and economic costs. Nasogastric (NG) and nasojejunal (NJ) feeding are widely used, but comprehensive comparisons of nutritional outcomes, complications, and DRG‑related economic indicators remain limited.
objectiveTo compare the clinical effects and economic burden of NG versus NJ enteral nutrition in stroke patients under DRG, and to provide evidence for individualized clinical decision‑making.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted in stroke patients receiving enteral nutrition at a tertiary hospital in central China from January 2021 to December 2024. A total of 322 patients were initially enrolled (193 in NG group, 129 in NJ group), and 149 patients were eligible for final DRG economic analysis (83 in NG group, 66 in NJ group). To confirm model robustness, 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed (n = 66 pairs). Nutritional indicators, complications, length of stay, hospitalization costs, nutritional costs, and DRG cost overrun rates were compared.
resultsThe NJ group had lower pretreatment hemoglobin, but showed significantly greater improvements in hemoglobin and albumin than the NG group (both P < 0.001). The incidence of malnutrition and inflammatory burden index were significantly lower in the NJ group (both P < 0.05). In DRG analysis, total hospitalization costs and nutritional costs were significantly higher in the NJ group (both P < 0.001), with a higher DRG overrun rate (77.3% vs. 62.7%, P = 0.055). Length of stay was similar between groups (P > 0.05).
conclusionNJ is superior to NG in improving nutritional status and reducing malnutrition and inflammatory burden in stroke patients, but is associated with higher short‑term costs and greater DRG overrun risk. A risk‑stratified strategy is recommended under DRG to balance clinical benefits and economic sustainability.
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.