Electromagnetic‐guided vs endoscopic‐guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes: Adverse events
Electromagnetic‐guided showed no clear difference in adverse events compared with endoscopic‐guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Electromagnetic‐guided vs endoscopic‐guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes Adverse events Electromagnetic‐guided showed no clear difference in adverse events compared with endoscopic‐guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes (moderate certainty). Electromagnetic‐guided versus endoscopic‐guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes (2022) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.78 [0.41, 1.49] | 4 studies · 536 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Electromagnetic‐guided versus endoscopic‐guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes 2022 · 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.