Prolonged Nasoenteral Tube Feeding in Children Contradicts Best Practice Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND: Expert consensus guidelines from the Canadian Pediatric Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics state that naso-enteral tube feeding is not appropriate for long term home nutrition support. Therefore, gastrostomy tubes are recommended for nutrition support predicted to last 2-3 months or more. A 2010 survey of pediatric health care providers at our institution demonstrated that 73% were unaware of these guidelines and 47% would consider a G tube only after 3-6 months. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to determine whether the duration of nasoenteral tube feeding in children at our centre is consistent with expert consensus guidelines. DESIGN/METHODS: Prospectivechart review of all patients younger than 17 years of age referred for home nutrition support from January 2014 - July 2015 was conducted, with data collection until the present. RESULTS: 310 children were referred for nutrition support. Excluding patients out of province, lost to follow-up or deceased within a year from referral, 237 children were included. 88% were initially fed with a nasoen-teral tube; 76% of them were predicted to require tube feeding for months to years. 70% were fed with a nasoenteral tube for more than 3 months, with a mean duration of 4.8 months (range 0.07-20.3 months). 10% eventually underwent gastrostomy tube insertion, with a mean time to insertion of 9.7 months (0.07-20.3 months). CONCLUSION: The duration of nasoenteral tube feeding in a significant proportion of children is longer than recommended by expert consensus guidelines. An important contributing factor is lack of knowledge amongst pediatric health care practitioners about existing best practice guidelines.
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 | 0.030 | 0.142 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".