↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of Complication Rates, Types, and Average Tube Patency Between Jejunostomy Tubes and Percutaneous Gastrostomy Tubes in a Regional Home Enteral Nutrition Support Program

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition in Clinical Practice, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of Complication Rates, Types, and Average Tube Patency Between Jejunostomy Tubes and Percutaneous Gastrostomy Tubes in a Regional Home Enteral Nutrition Support Program
Published in
Nutrition in Clinical Practice, November 2014
DOI 10.1177/0884533614554263
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Ao, Meghan Sebastianski, Vijeyakumar Selvarajah, Leah Gramlich

Abstract

Background: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes are common enteral access devices for long-term enteral nutrition. Jejunostomy tubes (J-tubes) are able to provide postpyloric enteral access in patients who are not PEG tube candidates. There is a scarcity of literature comparing complication rates of J-tubes to PEG tubes. Objective: To compare and characterize J-tube and PEG tube complications requiring tube replacement. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed on 560 patients discharged from the Northern Alberta Home Enteral Nutrition Support Program (NAHENSP) from January 2010 to December 2011. Patients were followed for 3 years from initial tube insertion or until discharge from the NAHENSP, whichever was earliest. Comparisons were made in terms of complications requiring tube replacement, tube patency to first replacement, and indications for tube replacement. Results: A total of 64 J-tube patients were identified and compared with 65 PEG tube patients. Tube replacement rates for the J-tube group included 3.2 cases per 1000 patient days compared with 0.86 cases per 1000 patient days in the PEG group (P < .001). The mean ± SEM duration to first tube replacement for J-tube and PEG tube patients was 160 ± 26.3 days and 331 ± 53.6 days, respectively (P = .010). The most common causes for tube replacement in J-tube patients were dislodgement (35.6%) and obstruction (22.2%) compared with routine replacement (54.5%) and dislodgement (27.2%) in the PEG tube group. Conclusion: J-tubes are associated with higher complication rates requiring tube replacement compared with PEG tubes. The main causes of J-tube replacement are dislodgement and obstruction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 22%
Other 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 13 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,182,051
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition in Clinical Practice
#494
of 1,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,266
of 263,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition in Clinical Practice
#16
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,402 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,110 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.