Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy vs nasogastric tube feeding: Mortality irrespective of
It is very uncertain whether percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy changes mortality irrespective of compared with nasogastric tube feeding (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy vs nasogastric tube feeding Mortality irrespective of · adult patients with swallowing disturbances It is very uncertain whether percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy changes mortality irrespective of compared with nasogastric tube feeding (very low certainty). Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for adults with swallowing disturbances (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.86 [0.58, 1.28] | 9 studies · 644 participants | Very low |
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy vs nasogastric tube feeding Mortality irrespective of · adult patients with swallowing disturbances It is very uncertain whether percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy changes mortality irrespective of compared with nasogastric tube feeding (very low certainty). Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for adults with swallowing disturbances (2012) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD008096.PUB3, superseded | RR 0.96 [0.64, 1.44] | 8 studies · 584 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for adults with swallowing disturbances 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.