MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

1019 Paediatric gastrostomy: where do the costs lie and how can we reduce them? – a systematic review

2021· review· en· W3203783500 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAbstracts · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChild Nutrition and Feeding Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGastrostomyGastrostomy tubeSystematic reviewInclusion and exclusion criteriaMEDLINEPediatricsInclusion (mineral)PopulationEnteral administrationHealth careIntensive care medicineParenteral nutritionSurgeryEnvironmental healthAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> Gastrostomy feeding to support nutrition in children is a common and effective undertaking. It is however, associated with significant costs both at creation of the gastrostomy and in maintaining the device in the long term. Given the widespread use of gastrostomies this creates a considerable financial burden for healthcare systems. <h3>Objectives</h3> This study aims to systematically review the existing literature to identify costs and potential cost reductions related to the insertion and maintenance of paediatric gastrostomy tubes (GT). <h3>Methods</h3> PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched using PRISMA guidelines using the key words ‘paediatric’, ‘gastrostomy’ and ‘costs’. Inclusion criteria were studies assessing cost and/or possible cost reductions relating to paediatric GT. Exclusion criteria were studies: published before 2000, reporting a non-exclusively paediatric population, reporting the effect of GT combined with another procedure e.g. fundoplication. Two authors independently reviewed the title and abstract of identified articles against the inclusion criteria, inconsistencies were discussed and agreement on inclusion reached. <h3>Results</h3> A total of 212 studies were identified from the search strategy. After screening, 35 were included in the systematic review. Publication dates ranged from 2003–2020. Eight countries were included: USA (26/35), Canada and the United Kingdom (2 each) and Australia, Brazil, Turkey, France and Poland (1 each). Twelve papers discussed insertion, 14 enteral feeds, 11 complications, 10 ongoing healthcare costs and 3 patient education. Findings are summarised in the table. <h3>Conclusions</h3> This study provides a comprehensive review of the costs associated with GTs in children. Significant cost savings are possible at every point in the pathway of a patient with a GT. One-time cost savings are possible at insertion through the use of standardised protocols. The choice of device at insertion has both short- and long-term cost implications, the use of a primary balloon device offers cost savings over PEG devices. Longer term savings are possible through rationalising and protocolising feeds and medications. Patient education programs provide cost reductions through fewer hospital visits and have the potential to reduce tube use overall.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it