Table 1. Baseline characteristic of studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis.
| Study | Country | Study design | Sample size | Age | Percentage of males(%) | Intervention | Control | NOS score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shaw 2006 [25] | UK | Retrospective | 98 | 61.0 | 50.0 | PEG | RIG or NG | 7 |
| Mathus-Vliegen 1994 [26] | The Netherlands | Prospective | 68 | 57.0 | 48.5 | PEG | Other | 7 |
| Mazzini 1995 [10] | Italy | Prospective | 66 | 59.9 | 51.5 | PEG | Other | 7 |
| Spataro 2011 [27] | Italy | Retrospective | 150 | 60.5 | 55.3 | PEG | Other | 8 |
| Blondet 2010 [28] | France | Retrospective | 40 | 66.1 | 42.5 | PEG | PRG | 7 |
| Thornton 2002 [29] | Ireland | Retrospective | 36 | 54.0 | 52.8 | PEG | PRG | 7 |
| Allen 2013 [30] | USA | Retrospective | 108 | 60.6 | 59.3 | PEG | RIG | 8 |
| Desport 2005 [31] | France | Prospective | 50 | 65.9 | 52.0 | PEG | RIG | 7 |
| ProGas Study Group 2015 [32] | UK | Prospective | 330 | 64.4 | 55.0 | PEG | RIG or PIG | 8 |
| Chio 2004 [33] | Italy | Retrospective | 50 | 67.0 | 50.0 | PEG | PRG | 7 |
*PEG, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy; RIG, radiological inserted gastrostomy; NG, nasogastric tube; PRG, percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy; PIG, per-oral image-guided gastrostomy; NOS, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale