Prophylactic PEG placement in head and neck cancer: How many feeding tubes are unused (and unnecessary)?

doi:10.3748/wjg.v17.i8.1004

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 17, Issue 8

This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (5432)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, HTML series, Figures (1-2) series, Tables (1-1) series.

Item

Count

PDF

423

HTML

4533

Figures (1-2)

259

Tables (1-1)

217

Sum=5432

Feb 28, 2011 (publication date) through Nov 5, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (57)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastroenterology

ISSN

1007-9327

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Brief Article

World J Gastroenterol. Feb 28, 2011; 17(8): 1004-1008
Published online Feb 28, 2011. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v17.i8.1004

Full Size Figure Download Figure

Figure 2 Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy use vs non-use observed for specific cancer treatment (A, B), stage (C), or cancer diagnosis (D). XRT: Radiation therapy; CTX: Chemotherapy.

Citation: Madhoun MF, Blankenship MM, Blankenship DM, Krempl GA, Tierney WM. Prophylactic PEG placement in head and neck cancer: How many feeding tubes are unused (and unnecessary)? World J Gastroenterol 2011; 17(8): 1004-1008
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v17/i8/1004.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v17.i8.1004