Systematic review of influence of abdominal massage on complications in patients with nasogastric tube feeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective:To systematically evaluate the influence of abdominal massage on complications in patients with nasogastric tube feeding.Methods:The relevant literatures were searched in databases of Cochrane Library，Joanna Briggs Institute Library，EMbase，PubMed，CBM，Web of Science，CNKI，and Wanfang.At the same time.We tried to explore the websites of the National Guideline Clearinghouse(NGC) and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario(RNAO).The retrieved studies were screened by two researchers independently by using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria,and then the dates from the literatures were extracted.Review Manager Software (5.3 version) was used to carry out metaanalysis.Results:A total of four RCTs and 1 CCT (n=412，participants) were eligible for inclusion.There were three studies showing that abdominal massage could reduce the gastric residual volume(P<0.000 01).Two studies indicated that abdominal massage could decrease the rate of gastric retention(P<0.000 1).Four studies indicated that abdominal massage could significantly lower the rate of distention and vomiting(P＜0.000 1).And two studies demonstrated that abdominal massage could make the rate of ventilatorassociated pneumonia(VAP)decrease(P=0.02).Conclusion:Abdominal massage for patients with nasogastric tube feeding could effectively reduce the incidence of gastric retention，distention，vomiting and VAP.
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 | 0.009 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".