MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410122227 · doi:10.24908/pocusj.v10i01.17785

The Utilization of Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) for the Confirmation of Gastric and Post-Pyloric Feeding Tube Placement in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit

2025· article· en· W4410122227 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alonso Marron, Michael Wolf, Marla C. Levine, Jeremy S. Boyd, Marta Hernanz‐Schulman

Bibliographic record

VenuePOCUS Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePoint of care ultrasoundFeeding tubeEnteral administrationRadiographyAbdomenIntensive care unitUltrasoundProspective cohort studyPoint-of-care testingParenteral nutritionEmergency medicineRadiologySurgeryIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to investigate the role of point of care ultrasound (POCUS) as an alternative imaging modality to confirm the location of gastric and post-pyloric feeding tubes in patients admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). This was a prospective descriptive study performed at a tertiary care children's hospital. Patients from birth to 17 years of age in whom the medical team placed a temporary enteral feeding tube were eligible for enrollment. The study physician, who was blinded to the radiographic findings, performed a POCUS study of the abdomen. An abdominal radiograph was obtained to confirm the placement in all patients. A total of 13 patients were enrolled, and 14 abdominal POCUS exams were completed. POCUS accurately identified the location of the enteral feeding tube in 10 of the 14 cases. POCUS had a sensitivity and specificity of 85.7% and 57.1%, respectively, in identifying gastric tubes. It had a sensitivity and specificity of 66.7% and 87.5%, respectively, in identifying post-pyloric tubes. No adverse events were reported. This study showed that POCUS had moderate sensitivity and specificity and was, overall, safe. Further studies can assess the level of training needed for improvement in accuracy, and larger studies can help support the findings of this data that POCUS is a safe and accurate alternative to radiographs for enteral feeding tube placement confirmation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePOCUS JournalSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207