Impact of Fundoplication Versus Gastrojejunal Feeding Tubes on Mortality and in Preventing Aspiration Pneumonia in Young Children With Neurologic Impairment Who Have Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Aspiration pneumonia is the most common cause of death in children with neurologic impairment who have gastroesophageal reflux disease. Fundoplications and gastrojejunal feeding tubes are frequently employed to prevent aspiration pneumonia in this population. Which of these approaches is more effective in preventing aspiration pneumonia and/or improving survival is unknown. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes for children with neurologic impairment and gastroesophageal reflux disease after either a first fundoplication or a first gastrojejunal feeding tube. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational cohort study of children with neurologic impairment who had either a fundoplication or gastrojejunal feeding tube between January 1997 and December 2005 at a tertiary care children's hospital. Main outcome measures were postprocedure aspiration pneumonia-free survival and mortality. Propensity analyses were used to control for bias in treatment assignment and prognostic imbalances. RESULTS: Of the 366 children with neurologic impairment and gastroesophageal reflux disease, 43 had a first gastrojejunal feeding tube and 323 underwent a first fundoplication. Median length of follow-up was 3.4 years. Children who received a first fundoplication had similar rates of aspiration pneumonia and mortality after the procedure compared with those who had a first gastrojejunal feeding tube, when adjusting for the treatment assignment using propensity scores. CONCLUSIONS: Aspiration pneumonia and mortality are not uncommon events after either a first fundoplication or a first gastrojejunal feeding tube for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease in children with neurologic impairment. Neither treatment option is clearly superior in preventing the subsequent aspiration pneumonia or improving overall survival for these children. This complex clinical scenario needs to be studied in a prospective, multicenter, randomized control trial to evaluate definitively whether 1 of these 2 management options is more beneficial.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".