Comparison 1. PEG versus NGT.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Intervention failure	8	408	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.18 [0.05, 0.59]
1.1 All baseline diseases	8	408	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.18 [0.05, 0.59]
2 Non adherence to treatment	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
2.1 Non adherence at 6 weeks	1	94	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.07 [0.00, 1.17]
2.2 ITT non adherence at 6 weeks	1	100	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.02 [0.00, 0.36]
2.3 ITT non adherence at 6 months	1	100	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.01 [0.00, 0.16]
3 Intervention failure (subgrouped by gastrostomy technique)	8	408	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.18 [0.05, 0.59]
3.1 Pull technique	3	90	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.07 [0.01, 0.35]
3.2 Push technique	1	33	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.05 [0.00, 0.74]
3.3 Non‐reported technique	4	285	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.43 [0.13, 1.44]
4 Intervention failure (subgrouped by baseline disease)	8	408	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.18 [0.05, 0.59]
4.1 Cerebrovascular event or neurological baseline diseases	4	109	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.08 [0.02, 0.33]
4.2 Mixed baseline diseases	4	299	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.32 [0.08, 1.32]
5 ITT analyses	5		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
5.1 ITT intervention failure non‐reported gastrostomy technique	4	285	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.37 [0.09, 1.45]
5.2 ITT intervention failure mixed baseline diseases	4	305	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.29 [0.06, 1.33]
6 Mortality irrespective of follow‐up time	9	644	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.86 [0.58, 1.28]
7 Mean survival (months)	1	82	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.30 [3.28, 5.32]
8 Adverse effects irrespective of follow‐up time	6	597	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.83 [0.51, 1.34]
8.1 Adverse effects	6	597	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.83 [0.51, 1.34]
9 Adverse effects irrespective of follow‐up time	6	603	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.81 [0.48, 1.35]
9.1 ITT adverse effects irrespective of follow‐up time	6	603	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.81 [0.48, 1.35]
10 Pneumonia irrespective of follow‐up time	7	645	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.70 [0.46, 1.06]
11 Reflux oesophagitis	1	82	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.45 [0.22, 0.92]
12 Weight kg (endpoint)	1	21	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	3.20 [‐5.95, 12.35]
13 Weight (change from baseline)	3	148	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	3.11 [‐0.52, 6.75]
14 Mid‐arm circumference in cm (endpoint)	2		Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
14.1 Mid‐arm circumference	2	54	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	1.58 [‐0.11, 3.27]
14.2 Sensitivity analysis	1	21	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	2.5 [‐0.64, 5.64]
15 Mid‐arm circumference in cm (change from baseline)	2	115	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	1.16 [1.01, 1.31]
16 Albumin	2		Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
16.1 Mean serum albumin levels	2	107	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	6.03 [2.31, 9.74]
16.2 Sensitivity analysis	1	25	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	7.80 [5.52, 10.08]
17 Albumin (change from baseline)	1	94	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.12 [0.11, 0.14]
18 Haemoglobin g/dL (change from baseline)	1	94	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.59 [0.49, 0.69]
19 Score of patients satisfaction	1	43	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.56 [‐1.32, 0.20]
20 Score of inconvenience by nurses	1	68	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.58 [‐1.18, 0.02]
21 Time on enteral nutrition (days)	2	119	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	14.48 [‐2.74, 31.71]
22 Quality of life measures EORTC QLQ‐H&N35 number scoring 3 or 4 (worst)	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
22.1 Pain	2	133	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.33 [0.00, 471.74]
22.2 Learning to use	2	133	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.18 [0.00, 149.53]
22.3 Inconvenient	2	133	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.03 [0.00, 0.29]
22.4 Uncomfortable	2	133	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.03 [0.00, 0.29]
22.5 Altered/bad body image	2	133	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.01 [0.00, 0.18]
22.6 Family life	1	100	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.01 [0.00, 0.18]
22.7 Social activities	2	133	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.01 [0.00, 0.18]
23 Functional ability (MRS)	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
23.1 MRS scale from 0‐3	1	321	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.59 [0.34, 1.01]
23.2 MRS scale from 4‐5	1	321	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.20 [0.90, 1.61]
23.3 MRS scale from 4‐5 or death	1	321	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.10 [1.00, 1.20]
24 Length of hospital stay (days)	2	381	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐12.67 [‐40.18, 14.84]