1. Controlled studies assessing survival in ALS patients using PEG versus oral feeding alone.
| Author and date of publication | Number of patients in each group | Survival advantage from PEG |
Nutritional advantage from PEG |
Quality of life (QOL) advantage from PEG | Study type | Control for confounders |
| Mazzini 1995 | 31 PEGa vs 35 POb | Yes; 38 vs 30 month survival; P = 0.03 | Yes | Anecdotal advantages only | Prospective cohort | No matching or regression analysis performed |
| Strong 1999 | 73 PEG vs 293 PO | No for entire cohort | Not reported | Not reported | Case control | No matching or regression performed |
| Chiò 1999 | 50 PEG vs 100 PO | Yes; protective OR 1.55, P = 0.02 | Yes, observation only | Not reported | Case control | Matched on age, FVCe, site of onset, severity of disease (Norris Score) |
| Desport 2000 | 30 PEG vs 30 PO | No | Not reported | Not reported | Case control | Multivariate regression used |
| Mitsumoto 2003 | 137 PEG vs 187 PO | No; 47 months vs 58 months; P = 0.33 | Yes; observation only | 17% with improved psychological wellbeing and 28% with less fatigue and less time spent on meals/medications | Case control | Patients with bulbar scores of 5 or less selected and adjustment for bulbar subscore performed in analysis. |
| Forbes 2004 | 142 PEG vs 1084 PO | No; 25.0 vs 24.7 months; P = 0.52 | Not reported | Not reported | Case control | No matching or regression performed |
| Czaplinski 2006 | 275 PEG vs 766 PO | Yes; protective ORc 0.75, P = 0.003 | Not reported | Not reported | Retrospective cohort | Multivariate regression performed |
| Chiò 2002 / Chiò 2006 | 52 PEG vs 169 PO | Yes; protective HRd 3.38, P = 0.0006 | Not reported | Not reported | Prospective cohort | Mulitvariate regression performed |
| Murphy 2008 | 57 PEG vs 187 PO | No; 26 vs 27 month survival | Not reported | Not reported | Prospective cohort | No matching or multivariate regression performed |
| Mitchell 2006 | 127 PEG vs 348 PO | No; protective OR 0.59, P = 0.30 | Not reported | Not reported | Case control | Multivariate regression performed controlling for age, sex, onset site, riluzole use |
| Sorenson 2007 | 12 PEG vs 28 PO | No | Not reported | Not reported | Case control | No matching or regression performed |
aPEG = percutaneous enteral gastrostomy. bPO = per os (oral). cOR = odds ratio. dHR = hazard ratio. eFVC = forced vital capacity.