↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in this source, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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 nasogastric tube feeding for adults with swallowing disturbances
Published by
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, March 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008096.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

A number of conditions compromise the passage of food along the digestive tract. Nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding is a classic, time-proven technique, although its prolonged use can lead to complications such as lesions to the nasal wing, chronic sinusitis, gastro-oesophageal reflux, and aspiration pneumonia. Another method of infusion, percutaneous endoscopy gastrostomy (PEG), is generally used when there is a need for enteral nutrition for a longer time period. There is a high demand for PEG in patients with swallowing disorders, although there is no consistent evidence about its effectiveness and safety as compared to NGT.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Norway 2 3%
Denmark 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 67 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 17%
Researcher 11 15%
Other 9 13%
Student > Master 8 11%
Professor 6 8%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 14 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 57%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 14 19%