Cited by 78Clinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesDysphagia Assessment and Management

Patient Outcomes Related to Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Placement

Verhoef, Marja J., Van Rosendaal, Guido M.A.·2001·Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology

Abstract

Although many aspects of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) have been addressed in the literature, attention to psychologic and social outcomes of PEG has been limited. Our goal was to assess a range of physical, psychologic, and social outcomes related to PEG feeding. This study is a follow-up survey of patients undergoing PEG and/or their surrogates. Data were collected by semistructured interviews in two tertiary hospitals in Alberta, Canada. Measurements consisted of PEG status at 1-year follow-up, quality of life, impact on caregivers, and opinions about long-term support via PEG. We included 71 patients in the study. Of all 39% of patients died, 32% had the PEG still in place, and for 28% the PEG was removed at the end of the 1-year follow-up. The prognosis of the attending physician at the initial visit and the underlying disease were significantly related to the outcome (p < 0.05). After 1 year, 85% of all patients whose PEGs were still in place, were not working or studying or managing their own household in any capacity, 67% were not managing personal care, and 19% were feeling very ill. Fifty-two percent of the caregivers spent 15 hours or more per week visiting and caring for the patient. At the 1-year follow-up, all ten surviving patients who could be interviewed agreed they would have a PEG again. Seventy percent of the caregivers said that they would want the same decision to be made. Although a majority of patients and caregivers did not regret the deci…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00004836-200101000-00012

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Verhoef, M. J., & Van Rosendaal, G. M. A.
Affiliations
University of Calgary (CA)
Corresponding author
Verhoef, Marja J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology
Published
2001-01
Volume
32
Issue
1
Pages
49-53
ISSN
0192-0790 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2079878747
Cited by
78
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, long-term enteral nutrition, quality of life, caregiver burden, social outcomes, patient outcomes, surrogate decision-making, prognosis
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Enteral Nutrition, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Gastroscopy, Gastrostomy, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prognosis, Quality of Life, Skin, Survival Rate, Treatment Outcome, Caregivers

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