Nonoral Feeding Practices for Infants in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to delineate current practice for the selection of nonoral feeding routes in level III neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) across Canada. SUBJECTS: All level III Canadian NICUs (n = 28). DESIGN: A written questionnaire was developed specifically for gathering data in the NICU about the current method of selection of feeding tubes. METHODS: We surveyed, by telephone, charge nurses at all level III NICUs to elucidate the current use of orogastric (OG) versus nasogastric (NG) route of tube for fullterm and preterm infants. RESULTS: The results from this study indicate that 75% percent of NICUs in Canada primarily used NG tubes. Pediatric institutions were significantly more likely to use NG (>75% of the time) (P = .003). All of the centers (100%) using NG tubes used indwelling tubes. Only 18% of centers selected OG tubes primarily. Nonpediatric institutions were significantly more likely to use OG tubes (P = .001). Ten percent of NICUs reported using both NG and OG tubes equally. There was no difference indicated on selection of tube for preterm babies versus term babies. However, there was 100% agreement in the use of OG tubes in infants with structural anomalies of the nares or if the infants were on continuous positive airway pressure. Overall, decision regarding route of tube was made primarily according to physician preference and the natural history and experience within the NICU. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this survey indicate that there are no clear clinical guidelines currently in place to determine route of feeding tubes in NICUs across Canada. Physician preference or history of the institution appears to be the most important variable in determining tube selection. Given the high prevalence of acute and chronic feeding difficulties among NICU survivors, the choice of route of tube should be guided by specific evidence-based criteria.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".