↓ Skip to main content

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus percutaneous radiological gastrostomy for swallowing disturbances

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus percutaneous radiological gastrostomy for swallowing disturbances
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009198.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yong Yuan, Yongfan Zhao, Tianpeng Xie, Yang Hu

Abstract

Gastrostomy has been established as the standard procedure for administering long-term enteral nutrition in individuals with swallowing disturbances. Percutaneous gastrostomy is a less-invasive approach than open surgical gastrostomy, and can be accomplished via endoscopy (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy or PEG) or sonographic or fluoroscopic guidance (percutaneous radiological gastrostomy or PRG). Both techniques have different limitations, advantages, and contraindications. In order to determine the optimal technique for long-term nutritional supplementation many studies have been conducted to compare the outcomes of these two techniques; however, it remains unclear as to which method is superior to the other with respect to both efficacy and safety. To compare the safety and efficacy of PEG and PRG in the treatment of individuals with swallowing disturbances. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, January 2016); MEDLINE (1946 to 22 January 2016); EMBASE (1980 to 22 January 2016); the reference lists of identified articles; databases of ongoing trials, including the Chinese Cochrane Centre Controlled Trials Register; and PubMed. We applied no language restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PEG with PRG in individuals with swallowing disturbances, regardless of the underlying disease. Two authors independently evaluated the search results and assessed the quality of the studies. Data analyses could not be performed as no RCTs were identified for inclusion in this review. We identified no RCTs comparing PEG and PRG for percutaneous gastrostomy in individuals with swallowing disturbances. The large body of evidence in this field comes from retrospective and non-randomised controlled studies and case series. Based on this evidence, both PEG and PRG can be safely performed in selected individuals, although both are associated with major and minor complications. A definitive RCT has yet to be conducted to identify the preferred percutaneous gastrostomy technique. Both PEG and PRG are effective for long-term enteral nutritional support in selected individuals, though current evidence is insufficient to recommend one technique over the other. Choice of technique should be based on indications and contraindications, operator experience and the facilities available. Large-scale RCTs are required to compare the two techniques and to determine the optimal approach for percutaneous gastrostomy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 2%
Unknown 57 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 33%
Student > Bachelor 9 16%
Researcher 6 10%
Unspecified 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Other 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 47%
Unspecified 11 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 5 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,230,457
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,691
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,527
of 334,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#139
of 177 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 334,002 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 177 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.