Electromagnetic-Guided Bedside Placement of Nasoenteral Feeding Tubes by Nurses Is Non-Inferior to Endoscopic Placement by Gastroenterologists: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Gerritsen, Arja; Rooij, Thijs de; Dijkgraaf, Marcel G. W.; Busch, Olivier R.; Bergman, Jacques; Ubbink, Dirk T.; Duijvendijk, Peter van; Erkelens, G Willemien; Klos, Mariël; Kruyt, Philip M.; Bac, Dirk Jan; Rosman, Camiel; Tan, Adriaan C.; Molenaar, I. Quintus; Monkelbaan, Jan F; Mathus-Vliegent, Elisabeth M; Besselink, Marc G.

doi:10.1038/ajg.2016.224

Cited by 18 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(47 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The search identi ed 176 potentially relevant studies, 15 of which were examined in detail and 4 RCTs of which were included in the nal analysis [5][6][7][8].…”

Section: Search Strategy Yield and Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The sex distribution was 53.3% male patients, with a range of 51.3-63.6%. Two studies were conducted in Netherlands [5][6][7][8], one in Austria [5], and one in China [8]. Two of the studies [6,7] were of multi-center design (3 or 5 recruiting sites).…”

Section: Search Strategy Yield and Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two studies were conducted in Netherlands [5][6][7][8], one in Austria [5], and one in China [8]. Two of the studies [6,7] were of multi-center design (3 or 5 recruiting sites). Two studies exclusively evaluated critical ill patients, one [6] evaluated patients from gastrointestinal surgical wards, and the remaining one [7] included outpatients, ward patients, and critically ill patients.…”

Section: Search Strategy Yield and Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two of the studies [6,7] were of multi-center design (3 or 5 recruiting sites). Two studies exclusively evaluated critical ill patients, one [6] evaluated patients from gastrointestinal surgical wards, and the remaining one [7] included outpatients, ward patients, and critically ill patients. In ENDO group, tube placement was performed by a gastroenterologist assisted by one or two nurses.…”

Section: Search Strategy Yield and Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With increasing availability and familiarity with this technique, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs ) [5][6][7][8] have compared EM-guided versus endoscopic (ENDO) technique. These RCTs were limited because of small sample sizes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Electromagnetic-Guided Versus Endoscopic Placement of Nasoenteral Feeding Tubes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Wei

Jin

Zhu

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Current evidence supporting the utility of electromagnetic (EM)-guided method as the preferred technique for nasoenteral feeding tube placement is limited. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the performance of EM-guided versus endoscopic placement.Methods: We searched several databases for all randomized controlled trials evaluating the EM-guided vs. endoscopic placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes up to 28 July 2020. Primary outcome was procedure success rate. Secondary outcomes included reinsertion rate, number of attempts, placement-related complications, tube-related complications, insertion time, total procedure time, patient discomfort, recommendation scores, length of hospital stay, mortality, and total costs. Results: Four trials involving 536 patients were qualified for the final analysis. There was no difference between the two groups in procedure success rate (RR 0.97; 95% CI: 0.91-1.03), reinsertion rate (RR 0.84; 95% CI: 0.59-1.20), number of attempts (WMD -0.23; 95% CI: -0.99-0.53), placement-related complications (RR 0.78; 95% CI: 0.41-1.49), tube-related complications (RR 1.08; 95% CI: 0.82-1.44), total procedure time (WMD -18.09; 95% CI: -38.66-2.47), length of hospital stay (WMD 1.57; 95% CI: -0.33-3.47), ICU mortality (RR 0.80; 95% CI: 0.50-1.29), in-hospital mortality (RR 0.87; 95% CI: 0.59-1.28), and total costs (SMD -1.80; 95% CI: -3.96-0.36). The EM group was associated with longer insertion time (WMD 4.3; 95% CI: 0.2-8.39), higher patient discomfort level (WMD 1.28; 95% CI: 0.46-2.1), and higher recommendation scores (WMD 1.67; 95% CI: 0.24-3.10).Conclusions: EM-guided placement showed similar efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness when compared with endoscopic placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes.

show abstract

“…The search identi ed 176 potentially relevant studies, 15 of which were examined in detail and 4 RCTs of which were included in the nal analysis [5][6][7][8].…”

Section: Search Strategy Yield and Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%