Complications that arise with nasogastric tubes after hospitalization in the pediatric population: A mixed methods systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children use nasogastric tubes (NGTs) to ensure optimum nutrition and medication delivery when oral feeding fails or when they experience faltering growth. Although this method is less invasive, children may experience complications associated with NGTs. There is a gap in the literature regarding the types and prevention of complications of NGTs in the pediatric population at home. This review determines at-home complications associated with NGTs in the pediatric population (aged 0-18 years) and the type of education and support provided to caregivers. Databases MEDLINE, Embase using the Ovid interface, and CINAHL using the EBSCOhost interface were searched for relevant studies from January 1946 to November 2022. Twenty-four articles were found, of which 16 studies with 902 children with NGTs feeding were systematically reviewed. Two themes emerged: (1) prevalence and types of NGT complications and (2) preventable complications and education/management strategies for prevention. Seven studies reported main complications of vomiting, retching and gagging, nausea, aspiration, local granulation tissue, and inadvertent removal, with two studies reporting no complications. Most complications were managed at home, suggesting caregivers were able to address issues without seeking additional medical intervention. Key recommendations to mitigate complications included training caregivers in NGT management, troubleshooting common complications, and evaluating caregiver competency before discharge. This systematic review emphasized the need for structured training programs to improve caregiver competence and safety practices, highlighting key areas for clinical improvement, including caregiver education, reducing at-home complications, and standardizing care for children using NGTs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".