↓ Skip to main content

Ultrasonography for confirmation of gastric tube placement

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 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
Ultrasonography for confirmation of gastric tube placement
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012083.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hiraku Tsujimoto, Yasushi Tsujimoto, Yukihiko Nakata, Mai Akazawa, Yuki Kataoka

Abstract

Gastric tubes are commonly used for the administration of drugs and tube feeding for people who are unable to swallow. Feeding via a tube misplaced in the trachea can result in severe pneumonia. Therefore, the confirmation of tube placement in the stomach after tube insertion is important. Recent studies have reported that ultrasonography provides good diagnostic accuracy estimates in the confirmation of appropriate tube placement. Hence, ultrasound could provide a promising alternative to X-rays in the confirmation of tube placement, especially in settings where X-ray facilities are unavailable or difficult to access. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound for gastric tube placement confirmation. We searched the Cochrane Library (2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE (to March 2016), Embase (to March 2016), National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) PROSPERO Register (to May 2016), Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility Databases (to May 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (to May 2016), ISRCTN registry (May 2016), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to May 2016) and reference lists of articles, and contacted study authors. We included studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of naso- and orogastric tube placement confirmed by ultrasound visualization using X-ray visualization as the reference standard. We included cross-sectional studies, and case-control studies. We excluded case series or case reports. Studies were excluded if X-ray visualization was not the reference standard or if the tube being placed was a gastrostomy or enteric tube. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from each of the included studies. We contacted authors of the included studies to obtain missing data. We identified 10 studies (545 participants and 560 tube insertions) which met our inclusion criteria.No study was assigned low risk of bias or low concern in every QUADAS-2 domain. We judged only three (30%) studies to have low risk of bias in the participant selection domain because they performed ultrasound after they confirmed correct position by other methods.Few data (43 participants) were available for misplacement detection (specificity) due to the low incidence of misplacement. We did not perform a meta-analysis because of considerable heterogeneity of the index test such as the difference of echo window, the combination of ultrasound with other confirmation methods (e.g. saline flush visualization by ultrasound) and ultrasound during the insertion of the tube. For all settings, sensitivity estimates for individual studies ranged from 0.50 to 1.00 and specificity estimates from 0.17 to 1.00. For settings where X-ray was not readily available and participants underwent gastric tube insertion for drainage (four studies, 305 participants), sensitivity estimates of ultrasound in combination with other confirmatory tests ranged from 0.86 to 0.98 and specificity estimates of 1.00 with wide confidence intervals.For the studies using ultrasound alone (four studies, 314 participants), sensitivity estimates ranged from 0.91 to 0.98 and specificity estimates from 0.67 to 1.00. Of 10 studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of gastric tube placement, few studies had a low risk of bias. Based on limited evidence, ultrasound does not have sufficient accuracy as a single test to confirm gastric tube placement. However, in settings where X-ray is not readily available, ultrasound may be useful to detect misplaced gastric tubes. Larger studies are needed to determine the possibility of adverse events when ultrasound is used to confirm tube placement.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 105 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 16%
Student > Master 12 11%
Researcher 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Other 25 24%
Unknown 21 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 28 27%

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 07 October 2018.
All research outputs
#3,392,340
of 13,610,713 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,092
of 10,667 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,410
of 264,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#165
of 242 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,610,713 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,667 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 264,927 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 242 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.