Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for adults with swallowing disturbances

This is not the most recent version

view the current version 22 May 2015

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008096.pub3Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 14 March 2012see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:

  1. Cochrane Gut Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2012 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Claudio AR Gomes Jr

    Correspondence to: Gastroenterological Surgery, UNIFESP ‐ Escola Paulista de Medicina, São Paulo, Brazil

    [email protected]

  • Suzana AS Lustosa

    Extension, Research, Teaching Unit ‐ UEPE, Hospital Municipal Dr. Munir Rafful, Volta Redonda, RJ, Brazil

  • Delcio Matos

    Gastroenterological Surgery, UNIFESP ‐ Escola Paulista de Medicina, São Paulo, Brazil

  • Régis B Andriolo

    Department of Public Health, Universidade do Estado do Pará, Belém, Brazil

  • Daniel R Waisberg

    Faculty of Medicine, Universidade de São Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil

  • Jaques Waisberg

    Faculdade de Medicina do ABC, Santo Andre, Brazil

Contributions of authors

Conceiving the review: CG, JW and DM
Co‐ordinating the review: CG
Screening search results: CG and SL
Organising retrieval of papers: CG and DRW
Screening retrieved papers against inclusion criteria: CG, SL, DM and JW
Apraising quality of papers: CG, SL, RBA and DRW
Extracting data from papers: CG, DRW, SL and RBA
Writing to authors of papers for additional information: CG
Providing additional data about papers: CG
Obtaining and screening data on unpublished studies: CG and DRW
Data management for the review: CG and SL
Entering data into Review Manager (RevMan 5.0): CG and RBA
Other statistical analysis not using RevMan: RBA
Interpretation of data: CG,DM, SL,RBA and JW
Statistical inferences: CG, RBA and SL
Writing the review: CG

Person responsible for reading and checking review before submission: CG, DM, JW and SL

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • No sources of support supplied

External sources

  • CAPES ‐ Ministry of Education for the postgraduate scholarship, Brazil.

Declarations of interest

None known.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the methodological support of the Brazilian Cochrane Centre and the CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior) ‐ Brazilian Ministry of Education for the scholarship.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2015 May 22

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for adults with swallowing disturbances

Review

Claudio AR Gomes Jr, Regis B Andriolo, Cathy Bennett, Suzana AS Lustosa, Delcio Matos, Daniel R Waisberg, Jaques Waisberg

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008096.pub4

2012 Mar 14

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for adults with swallowing disturbances

Review

Claudio AR Gomes Jr, Suzana AS Lustosa, Delcio Matos, Régis B Andriolo, Daniel R Waisberg, Jaques Waisberg

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008096.pub3

2010 Nov 10

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for adults with swallowing disturbances

Review

Claudio AR Gomes Jr, Suzana Angelica Silva Lustosa, Delcio Matos, Regis B Andriolo, Daniel R Waisberg, Jaques Waisberg

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008096.pub2

2009 Oct 07

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for adults with swallowing disturbances

Protocol

Claudio AR Gomes Jr, Suzana AS Lustosa, Delcio Matos, Régis B Andriolo, Daniel R Waisberg, Jaques Waisberg

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008096

Differences between protocol and review

Previous criteria to evaluate the risk of bias are indicated below. The criteria were modified according to the new Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011)

Selection bias

  • Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?

  • Was allocation adequately concealed?

  • Were there systematic differences between the baseline characteristics of the groups that were compared?

Attrition bias

Were there systematic differences between groups in withdrawals from a study?

Detection bias

Were there systematic differences between groups in how outcomes were determined?

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.