Accuracy and costs of bedside methods for confirming nasoenteral feeding tube position: a diagnostic accuracy study.

IF 1.3 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Mayara Carvalho Godinho Rigobello, Claire Nierva Herrera, Carlos Alberto Grespan Bonacim, Rosana Aparecida Pereira, Roosevelt Santos Nunes, Jorge Elias Junior, Fernanda Raphael Escobar Gimenes
{"title":"Accuracy and costs of bedside methods for confirming nasoenteral feeding tube position: a diagnostic accuracy study.","authors":"Mayara Carvalho Godinho Rigobello, Claire Nierva Herrera, Carlos Alberto Grespan Bonacim, Rosana Aparecida Pereira, Roosevelt Santos Nunes, Jorge Elias Junior, Fernanda Raphael Escobar Gimenes","doi":"10.1007/s40477-024-00960-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To analyze the accuracy and costs of bedside methods for confirming the position of a nasoenteral feeding tube newly inserted blindly by nurses.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Diagnostic accuracy study of three clinical methods (ultrasound, epigastric auscultation, and pH measurement) compared to radiography. The direct costs of each method used to confirm the positioning of the nasoenteral tube were also measured.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seventy-six adult patients underwent a total of 87 nasoenteral tube insertion procedures in hospital units located within the Northeast region of the State of São Paulo, Brazil. The clinical methods were conducted on all study participants in the specified sequence: ultrasound (as index test), followed by epigastric auscultation and pH measurement (also index tests).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The outcomes regarding the confirmation of the accurate positioning of the nasoenteral tube are as follows: ultrasonography demonstrated sensitivity and specific of 79.0% and 66.7%, respectively. Epigastric auscultation exhibited a sensitivity of 81.3% and specificity of 83.3%. The pH measurement method displayed sensitivity and specificity of 89.3% and 100% respectively. Additionally, in terms of estimated direct costs, the pH measurement method incurred a higher cost (USD $8.31) compared to the other methods, with a difference of USD $6.68.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on these results, X-ray examination remains the primary method for confirming the placement of nasoenteral tubes recently inserted blindly at the bedside. However, when considering the costs of the evaluated methods, it is advisable to consider the variations in expenses between non-radiological methods and X-ray examinations.</p>","PeriodicalId":51528,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ultrasound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ultrasound","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-024-00960-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To analyze the accuracy and costs of bedside methods for confirming the position of a nasoenteral feeding tube newly inserted blindly by nurses.

Design: Diagnostic accuracy study of three clinical methods (ultrasound, epigastric auscultation, and pH measurement) compared to radiography. The direct costs of each method used to confirm the positioning of the nasoenteral tube were also measured.

Methods: Seventy-six adult patients underwent a total of 87 nasoenteral tube insertion procedures in hospital units located within the Northeast region of the State of São Paulo, Brazil. The clinical methods were conducted on all study participants in the specified sequence: ultrasound (as index test), followed by epigastric auscultation and pH measurement (also index tests).

Results: The outcomes regarding the confirmation of the accurate positioning of the nasoenteral tube are as follows: ultrasonography demonstrated sensitivity and specific of 79.0% and 66.7%, respectively. Epigastric auscultation exhibited a sensitivity of 81.3% and specificity of 83.3%. The pH measurement method displayed sensitivity and specificity of 89.3% and 100% respectively. Additionally, in terms of estimated direct costs, the pH measurement method incurred a higher cost (USD $8.31) compared to the other methods, with a difference of USD $6.68.

Conclusions: Based on these results, X-ray examination remains the primary method for confirming the placement of nasoenteral tubes recently inserted blindly at the bedside. However, when considering the costs of the evaluated methods, it is advisable to consider the variations in expenses between non-radiological methods and X-ray examinations.

确认鼻饲管位置的床旁方法的准确性和成本:诊断准确性研究。
目的:分析由护士盲插新鼻饲管的床旁确认位置方法的准确性和成本:三种临床方法(超声波、上腹部听诊和 pH 值测量)与射线照相术的诊断准确性比较研究。此外,还对用于确认鼻胃管定位的每种方法的直接成本进行了测算:巴西圣保罗州东北部地区的医院共为 76 名成年患者进行了 87 次鼻胃管插入手术。所有研究对象均按照规定顺序进行了临床方法检查:超声波检查(作为指标检查),然后是上腹部听诊和 pH 值测量(也是指标检查):确认鼻肠管准确定位的结果如下:超声波检查的敏感性和特异性分别为 79.0% 和 66.7%。上腹听诊的敏感性为 81.3%,特异性为 83.3%。pH 值测量法的敏感性和特异性分别为 89.3% 和 100%。此外,在估算直接成本方面,pH 值测量法的成本(8.31 美元)高于其他方法,两者相差 6.68 美元:根据上述结果,X 光检查仍是确认最近在床边盲插的鼻肠管位置的主要方法。不过,在考虑评估方法的成本时,最好考虑非放射学方法与 X 光检查之间的费用差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Ultrasound
Journal of Ultrasound RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
15.00%
发文量
133
期刊介绍: The Journal of Ultrasound is the official journal of the Italian Society for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (SIUMB). The journal publishes original contributions (research and review articles, case reports, technical reports and letters to the editor) on significant advances in clinical diagnostic, interventional and therapeutic applications, clinical techniques, the physics, engineering and technology of ultrasound in medicine and biology, and in cross-sectional diagnostic imaging. The official language of Journal of Ultrasound is English.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信