Evaluation of the benefits of gastric tube feeding in an elderly population
Abstract
Objective To assess the benefits of gastric tube feeding in an elderly community hospital population. Subjects One hundred consecutive patients who required feeding gastrostomies from July 1984 through June 1987. Setting Durham (NC) Regional Hospital, a 380-bed community hospital. Methods Patients were evaluated using a quality of life scale (QL scale) adapted from Spitzer's QL Index. The evaluation was based on hospital records at the time of tube placement and interviews with patients or family members at follow-up between June 1991 and March 1992. Subjective evaluation of the benefits of gastric tube feeding were obtained in interviews with patients or their families at follow-up. Results Overall there was no significant change in the objective evaluation of quality of life at follow-up. Men, patients over 76 years of age, and patients with chronic illnesses such as multiple strokes or dementia showed the poorest response on the QL scale. Subjective evaluation by patients or their family members was positively correlated with objective evaluation on the QL scale. Family members of patients who showed the poorest response on the QL scale were more likely than other family members to respond no to the question, "Would you want this done to you if you were in his/her situation?" Conclusions Our QL scale provides a good indication of patients' and family members' subjective evaluation of the benefits of gastrostomy tube feeding after 4 to 8 years. Thus, the scale should be hel…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The effect of enteral nutrition on functionality, mortality, and quality of life remains unclear.
“Nevertheless, the effect on functionality, mortality, and quality of life remains unclear (144-155).”
From ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical nutrition and hydration in geriatrics (2022) · cites this paper as [147]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical nutrition and hydration in geriatrics
Volkert, D., Beck, A. M., Cederholm, T., Cruz-Jentoft, A., Hooper, L., Kiesswetter, E., Maggio, M., Raynaud-Simon, A., Sieber, C., Sobotka, L., et al. (2022) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2022.01.024 · Cited by 516 · see citing works
- Authors
- Weaver, J. P.
- Corresponding author
- Weaver, J. P.
- Venue
- Archives of Family Medicine
- Publisher
- CLOCKSS Archive
- Published
- 1993-09-01
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 953-956
- ISSN
- 1063-3987 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1972860590
- Cited by
- 48
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Archives of Family Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Dysphagia Assessment and Management
- Keywords
- gastric tube feeding, gastrostomy, quality of life, elderly patients, advance directives, Patient Self-Determination Act, dementia, stroke
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Enteral Nutrition, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Female, Gastrostomy, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Risk Assessment, Patient Selection, Withholding Treatment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review