Study designs of evaluations included in the review
Retrospective cohort studies, prospective cohort studies, and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included.
Specific interventions included in the review
Enteral feeding tubes (no distinction was made between tube types) were compared with oral feeding.
Participants included in the review
Patients with neurogenic dysphagia were the primary focus, but other patients were also included.
Outcomes assessed in the review
The outcomes assessed were aspiration pneumonia and mortality.
How were decisions on the relevance of primary studies made?
The authors do not state how the papers were selected for the review, or how many of the authors performed the selection. Articles were included if they were published in the English language, included patients with neurogenic causes of dysphagia, and reported aspiration pneumonia or mortality as outcomes in enterally-fed patients. Studies that enrolled only unconscious patients, or those on ventilators or in surgical or intensive care units, were excluded.