EFICACIA DE LA NUTRICÍON ENTERAL POR SONDA NASOYEYUNAL COMPARADO CON SONDA NASOGASTRICA EN PACIENTE CRÍTICO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To systematize the evidence about the efficacy of enteral nutrition by nasojejunal tube compared with the nasogastric tube in the improvement of indicators of nutritional status in the critical patient.Materials and Methods:Observational and retrospective systematic review, the search was restricted to articles with full text, and the selected articles were subjected to a critical reading, using the GRADE evaluation to identify their degree of evidence.We searched Pudmed, Scielo, Bvs, Medline (2002-2017), studies comparing gastric and jejunal feeding in critically ill patients.The 10 scientific articles reviewed systematically correspond to China, Australia, Canada, Georgia, London.Results: In the definitive selection, a sample of the total of 10 systematically reviewed articles was chosen, we found that 60% (n = 6/10) 6 of the articles show that the placement of the nasojejunal tube reduces the residual gastric volume and provides better result in the nutritional status, meanwhile 40% of the articles reviewed, I conclude that there is no variation and significance in the use of nasojejunal or nasogastric tube, both being equal to provide enteral nutritional intake.Conclusions: The systematic review of the 10 scientific articles on the efficacy of enteral nutrition by nasojejunal tube compared with the nasogastric tube in the improvement of nutritional status indicators of the critical patient, showed that 60% (n = 06/10) show that enteral feeding by nasojejunal tube is more effective in comparison with the nasogastric tube in the improvement of the indicators (BMI, kcal per day, serum albumin, pre-albumin, transferrin) of the nutritional status of the critical patient.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".