The Orogastric Tube Guide® as a novel strategy for gastric tube insertion: a prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gastric tube insertion, either orally or nasally, is daily practice in anesthesia and intensive care. "Blind" insertion represents the common conventional method and is associated with low first-pass success and frequent complications. This trial aimed to evaluate the novel gastric tube guide as a rigid conduit in regard to insertion success rate, time required and associated complications versus the conventional "blind" insertion method. We hypothesized that the insertion success rate is higher using the Orogastric tube guide. METHODS: This trial was approved by ethics committee prior to patient recruitment. In a randomized order, anesthetists performed oral insertion of a gastric tube either with the Orogastric tube guide (GTG) or by conventional "blind" technique (CONV) in elective surgical patients. Exclusion criteria were defined as age under 18 years, pregnancy, emergency surgery and patients without indication for tracheal intubation and gastric tube insertion. RESULTS: We examined 151 patients (GTG, N.=71; CONV, N.=80). The success rate was higher with the GTG compared to the conventional method (69/71 (97%) vs. 61/80 (76%); P<0.001). The median insertion time was 25 s (IQR 20-39) using the GTG and 31 s (IQR 24-58; P=0.027) with the conventional method. We found no differences with regard to complications between the groups (P=0.54). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the use of the GTG facilitates and fastens orogastric tube placement in anesthetized patients and thereby constitutes a benefit in clinical routine.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".