↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
212 Mendeley
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 14 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 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 212 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 30 14%
Student > Master 28 13%
Researcher 18 8%
Student > Postgraduate 15 7%
Other 14 7%
Other 50 24%
Unknown 57 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 15%
Social Sciences 10 5%
Psychology 8 4%
Unspecified 8 4%
Other 25 12%
Unknown 69 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 April 2021.
All research outputs
#3,074,230
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,748
of 12,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,230
of 310,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#134
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,334 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 310,087 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.