Cochrane · systematic review · CD013865
Electromagnetic‐guided versus endoscopic‐guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes
Watanabe, J, Kakehi, E, Okamoto, M, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2022 · Cochrane Library
GutAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
5
current version
GRADE rated
5
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 3 · 60%Moderate 2 · 40%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Electromagnetic‐guided versus endoscopic‐guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Technical success in insertion Electromagnetic‐guided vs endoscopic‐guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes | RR 1.09 [0.88, 1.35] | 4 studies · 541 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Aspiration pneumonitis Electromagnetic‐guided vs endoscopic‐guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes | RR 0.24 [0.03, 2.18] | 2 studies · 315 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Time for postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes (minutes) Electromagnetic‐guided vs endoscopic‐guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 536 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Direct healthcare costs (USD equivalent) Electromagnetic‐guided vs endoscopic‐guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 474 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Adverse events Electromagnetic‐guided vs endoscopic‐guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes | RR 0.78 [0.41, 1.49] | 4 studies · 536 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |