SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2025
A systematic review and quality appraisal of guidelines and recommendations for home enteral tube feeding in adults.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the quality for integrated guidelines: systematic comparison between the AGREE Ⅱ and AGREE-HS tools.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- A Narrative Review of Home Enteral Nutrition in Australia with a Focus on Blended Tube Feeding.Nutrients · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Home Enteral Tube Feeding (HETF) is a viable option for people within primary care settings when oral intake is insufficient to meet nutritional needs. As HETF is not a risk-free therapy, guidelines exist to enable its safe provision. This review aims to summarise existing guidelines and their recommendations pertaining to the provision of HETF and appraise their methodological quality. A systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews, PRISMA-checklist and a 2019 methodological guide specific to the review of clinical practice guidelines (PROSPERO registration: CRD42023456223). Records were sourced from five bibliographical databases (Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, Scopus, Cinahl) and the grey literature (64 websites, seven guideline repositories). The AGREE-II tool was applied to eligible guidelines. The recommendations of guidelines meeting a predetermined threshold score (domain 3 'rigour of development' score >70%) were extracted, grouped, and assessed using the AGREE-REX tool. A total of 2707 records were screened with 15 guidelines meeting eligibility criteria. The median (IQR) overall AGREE-II score (/7) of all guidelines was 3 (3-5) and only 3/15 guidelines achieved a domain 3 score >70%. The median (IQR) overall AGREE-REX score was 33% (26-37%). No recommendation group achieved a domain score above 70%. No guideline or recommendation group was suggested for use without modification. Key limitations included suboptimal stakeholder involvement and implementability, and lack of methodological transparency. Current HETF guidelines inadequately align with methodological standards. This review highlights key areas HETF guideline developers should consider to create more relevant and implementable guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.