Skip to main content
. 2015 May 22;2015(5):CD008096. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008096.pub4

Yata 2001.

Methods Single‐centre parallel randomised controlled trial.
Sample size: not reported
Setting: 1 hospital in Inagawa Town (Japan)
Participants 82 patients: 22 male, 60 female; mean age: PEG 75.1 (50 to 96), NGT 76.5 (38 to 93)
Inclusion criteria: dysphagic patients
Exclusion criteria: not reported
Interventions PEG n = 42
NGT n = 40
Outcomes

  1. Nutrition status (albumin, haemoglobin and cholesterol)

  2. Adverse events

  3. Mean survival time

  4. Pneumonia

  5. Reflux oesophagitis

  6. Anaemia

  7. Peristomal leakage

  8. Gastric ulcer

  9. Treatment failure
Notes Study available only as a meeting abstract
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Not possible for this type of intervention
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Not explicitly described by the study investigators
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Flow of patients was not clearly reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Relevant outcomes were analysed,
Outcome 7. was reported only for NGT group
Outcomes 8 and 9 were reported only for the PEG group
Other bias High risk Unpublished study

GER: gastroesophogeal reflux
 ITT: intention‐to‐treat
 IV: intravenous
 NGT: nasogastric tube
 PEG: percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy
 QoL: quality of life