Gastrostomy tube feeding in epidermolysis bullosa: A <scp>multi‐center</scp> assessment of caregiver satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Gastrostomy tubes (G-tubes) are a feasible intervention for nutritional support in patients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB) who suffer from gastrointestinal involvement. However, some parents may be apprehensive about this surgical intervention. The purpose of this study is to assess caregiver satisfaction and experiences after G-tube insertion in children with EB. METHODS: Nine institutions sent an anonymous 89-item online questionnaire to caregivers of patients with EB and active G-tubes during an 8-week study period. The questionnaire consisted of eight sections and was formatted with multiple choice, Likert scales, dichotomous scales (yes/no), and free text. RESULTS: Twenty caregiver surveys were completed. All caregivers were parents (100%). The average age of G-tube placement was 2.7 years (SD: 2.1, range 0-8) and duration of the G-tube utilization was an average of 12.0 years (SD: 7.8, range 1-25). EB subtypes were dystrophic (n = 15/20, 75%), junctional (n = 3/20, 15%), and simplex (n = 2/10, 10%). Almost all caregivers (n = 18/20, 90%) reported high levels of satisfaction with G-tube management (scores > 20 on the modified SAGA-8 scale). More than half of caregivers (n = 12/20, 60%) reported that, retrospectively, they would have desired earlier adoption of the G-tube. Caregivers rated mealtimes as more enjoyable and easier both for themselves and the individual with EB post-G-tube placement. CONCLUSION: The survey demonstrates a high rate of satisfaction for G-tube use among caregivers of patients with EB across varying ages and household settings. The free-text responses provide unique insight into caregiver's individual experiences regarding G-tubes to be considered for future studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".