胃上听诊和pH测量在鼻侧管放置确认中的一致性。

Joana Márcia Martins Duarte, Ariane Ranzani Rigotti, Mayara Carvalho Godinho Rigobello, Rosana Aparecida Pereira, Fernanda Raphael Escobar Gimenes
{"title":"胃上听诊和pH测量在鼻侧管放置确认中的一致性。","authors":"Joana Márcia Martins Duarte, Ariane Ranzani Rigotti, Mayara Carvalho Godinho Rigobello, Rosana Aparecida Pereira, Fernanda Raphael Escobar Gimenes","doi":"10.5152/FNJN.2023.22240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the agreement between epigastric auscultation and pH measurement in the confirmation of nasoenteral tube placement.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A cross-sectional study carried out in a medium-sized private hospital in the interior of the state of São Paulo. Forty-nine patients who were submitted to ninety insertion procedures and confirmation of tube placement. aimed at evaluating the agreement of clinical methods used by nurses to confirm the positioning of a nasoenteral tube inserted blindly at the bedside, by measuring the parameters of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The epigastric auscultation was the method that presented the highest sensitivity (100.0%), but lower specificity (2.0%). The measurement of the pH presented lower sensitivity (63.0%) than the auscultation, however, higher specificity (58%). Moreover, the positive predictive value of the pH measurement was 55% and the negative predictive value was 66%. There was no agreement between the epigastric auscultation and the pH measurement with the radiography.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The pH measurement did not allow for distinguishing between gastric and enteric positioning, due to the similarity of the esophageal and pulmonary pH with the pH of the intestine. Furthermore, external factors such as the use of medication and reduced fasting time may interfere with the pH value.</p>","PeriodicalId":73033,"journal":{"name":"Florence Nightingale journal of nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10724715/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Agreement Between Epigastric Auscultation and pH Measurement in the Confirmation of Nasoenteral Tube Placement.\",\"authors\":\"Joana Márcia Martins Duarte, Ariane Ranzani Rigotti, Mayara Carvalho Godinho Rigobello, Rosana Aparecida Pereira, Fernanda Raphael Escobar Gimenes\",\"doi\":\"10.5152/FNJN.2023.22240\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the agreement between epigastric auscultation and pH measurement in the confirmation of nasoenteral tube placement.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A cross-sectional study carried out in a medium-sized private hospital in the interior of the state of São Paulo. Forty-nine patients who were submitted to ninety insertion procedures and confirmation of tube placement. aimed at evaluating the agreement of clinical methods used by nurses to confirm the positioning of a nasoenteral tube inserted blindly at the bedside, by measuring the parameters of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The epigastric auscultation was the method that presented the highest sensitivity (100.0%), but lower specificity (2.0%). The measurement of the pH presented lower sensitivity (63.0%) than the auscultation, however, higher specificity (58%). Moreover, the positive predictive value of the pH measurement was 55% and the negative predictive value was 66%. There was no agreement between the epigastric auscultation and the pH measurement with the radiography.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The pH measurement did not allow for distinguishing between gastric and enteric positioning, due to the similarity of the esophageal and pulmonary pH with the pH of the intestine. Furthermore, external factors such as the use of medication and reduced fasting time may interfere with the pH value.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73033,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Florence Nightingale journal of nursing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10724715/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Florence Nightingale journal of nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5152/FNJN.2023.22240\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Florence Nightingale journal of nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/FNJN.2023.22240","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在评估上腹部听诊和pH测量在鼻肠管放置确认中的一致性。方法:在圣保罗州内陆的一家中型私立医院进行的横断面研究。49名患者接受了90次插入手术和导管放置确认。目的通过测量敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值等参数,评价护士在床边盲插鼻肠管定位的临床方法的一致性。结果:上腹部听诊的灵敏度最高(100.0%),但特异度较低(2.0%);pH值测定的灵敏度较听诊低(63.0%),但特异性较高(58%)。此外,pH测量的阳性预测值为55%,阴性预测值为66%。上腹部听诊和用射线照相法测量pH值之间没有一致性。结论:由于食道和肺部的pH值与肠道的pH值相似,pH值测量无法区分胃和肠道的定位。此外,药物使用和禁食时间缩短等外部因素可能会干扰pH值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Agreement Between Epigastric Auscultation and pH Measurement in the Confirmation of Nasoenteral Tube Placement.

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the agreement between epigastric auscultation and pH measurement in the confirmation of nasoenteral tube placement.

Method: A cross-sectional study carried out in a medium-sized private hospital in the interior of the state of São Paulo. Forty-nine patients who were submitted to ninety insertion procedures and confirmation of tube placement. aimed at evaluating the agreement of clinical methods used by nurses to confirm the positioning of a nasoenteral tube inserted blindly at the bedside, by measuring the parameters of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.

Results: The epigastric auscultation was the method that presented the highest sensitivity (100.0%), but lower specificity (2.0%). The measurement of the pH presented lower sensitivity (63.0%) than the auscultation, however, higher specificity (58%). Moreover, the positive predictive value of the pH measurement was 55% and the negative predictive value was 66%. There was no agreement between the epigastric auscultation and the pH measurement with the radiography.

Conclusion: The pH measurement did not allow for distinguishing between gastric and enteric positioning, due to the similarity of the esophageal and pulmonary pH with the pH of the intestine. Furthermore, external factors such as the use of medication and reduced fasting time may interfere with the pH value.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Effect of Cold Sand Pack on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention-Induced Vascular Complications and Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Behind Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine Hesitancy of Filipino Nurses: A Thematic Approach Evaluation of Effective Factors on Decision of Families Regarding Medical Abortion Recommended due to Fetal Anomaly The Effect of Peripheral Neuropathy on Disability and Anxiety Knowledge and Attitude of Parents of Preterm Babies and Health-Care Providers Related to Human Milk Banking in a Tertiary-Care Hospital
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1