Linked Life Data

19032398

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/19032398

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
5
pubmed:dateCreated
2008-11-26
pubmed:abstractText
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes have largely replaced nasogastric tubes (NGT) for nutritional support of patients with head and neck cancer undergoing curative (chemo)radiotherapy without any good scientific basis. A randomized trial was conducted to compare PEG tubes and NGT in terms of nutritional outcomes, complications, patient satisfaction and cost. The study was closed early because of poor accrual, predominantly due to patients' reluctance to be randomized. There were 33 patients eligible for analysis. Nutritional support with both tubes was good. There were no significant differences in overall complication rates, chest infection rates or in patients' assessment of their overall quality of life. The cost of a PEG tube was 10 times that of an NGT. The duration of use of PEG tubes was significantly longer, a median 139 days compared with a median 66 days for NGT. We found no evidence to support the routine use of PEG tubes over NGT in this patient group.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Oct
pubmed:issn
1754-9485
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Electronic
pubmed:volume
52
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
503-10
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2008
pubmed:articleTitle
Randomized study of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tubes for enteral feeding in head and neck cancer patients treated with (chemo)radiation.
pubmed:affiliation
Division of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. june.corry@petermac.org
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Comparative Study, Randomized Controlled Trial