Double-blind randomized clinical trial of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus radiologically inserted gastrostomy in children
Rattachement africain : gb, ca. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND: The aim of this RCT was to determine whether radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG) in children is associated with more complications than percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). METHODS: Children at a single tertiary children's hospital requiring a primary gastrostomy were randomized to PEG or RIG. Patients were followed by assessors blinded to the insertion method. Complications were recorded, assigned a severity score, and analysed by zero-inflated Poisson regression analysis on an intention-to-treat basis, adjusting for length of follow-up. RESULTS: Over a 3-year period, 214 children were randomized (PEG, 107; RIG, 107), of whom 100 received PEG and 96 RIG. There was no significant difference in the number of complications between PEG and RIG groups (P = 0·875), or in the complication score: patients undergoing RIG had a 1·04 (95 per cent c.i. 0·89 to 1·21) times higher complication score than those who underwent PEG (P = 0·597). Only age had an independent significant effect on complication score, with older patients having a 0·97 (0·95 to 1·00) times lower complication score per year. CONCLUSION: PEG and RIG are both safe methods of gastrostomy insertion with a low rate of major complications. Registration number: NCT01920438 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé, mais le titre doit être comparé manuellement.
- Titre Crossref
- Double-blind randomized clinical trial of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy <i>versus</i> radiologically inserted gastrostomy in children
- Date Crossref
- 20/09/2017
- Éditeur
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.