Endoscopic vs radiologic gastrostomy for enteral feeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 1 Early outcomes were analyzed

Ref.	Country	Design	Period	PEG (N)	RIG (N)	Mean age PEG	Mean age RIG	Single (S) or Multicenter (M)
Hoffer et al[11], 1999	United States	Randomized	1993-1994	69	66	58.2	51.9	S
Möller et al[12], 1999	Sweden	Retrospective	1990-1994	12	94	48	64	S
Laasch et al[13], 2002	United Kingdom	Prospective	2000-2002	50	50	73	68	M (3)
Silas et al[14], 2005	United States	Retrospective	1997-2001	177	193	68	63	S
Rustom et al[15], 2006	United Kingdom	Retrospective	2002-2005	40	28	63.6	64.8	S
Galaski et al[16], 2009	Canada	Retrospective	2004-2005	30	44	55	65	S
La Nauze et al[17], 2012	Australia	Retrospective	2007-2009	80	97	61	61	S
Rio et al[18], 2010	United Kingdom	Retrospective	1999-2006	21	122	64	64	S
Lewis et al[19], 2014	United Kingdom	Randomized	2012-2013	34	31	73	71	S
ProGas Study Group[20], 2015	United Kingdom	Retrospective	2010-2014	121	163	64.2	63.6	M (24)
Vidhya et al[21], 2018	Australia	Retrospective	2013-2015	85	52	65	64	S
Park et al[22], 2019	South Korea	Retrospective	2010-2015	324	94	66	66.2	M (5)
Strijbos et al[23], 2019	Netherlands	Retrospective	2008-2016	291	469	66	66.2	S
Lainez et al[24], 2020	Spain	Retrospective	2019	25	23	63.98	62.41	S
Maasarani et al[25], 2020	United States	Retrospective	2004-2014	232164	26477	NI	NI	M
Kohli et al[26], 2020	United States	Retrospective	2014-2017	16384	154007	53.7	67.2	M
Kohli et al[27], 2021	United States	Retrospective	2011-2021	23566	9715	70.7	69.6	M

PEG: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy; PRG: Radiologically guided gastrostomy; NI: Not informed.