Evidence Hub

Efficacy of prokinetics in preventing pneumonia in post-stroke patients with nasogastric tubes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

L. Carretta, P. R. Teixeira, L. C. Faria, N. B. de Oliveira, E. E. de Freitas, R. B. Cipriano, F. F. Pinto, L. D. dos Santos et al.

Minerva Medica, 2026

600 participants

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Post-stroke patients with nasogastric tubes are at higher risk of aspiration pneumonia. In such cases, prokinetics have been linked with improved gastric emptying and reduced reflux, even though their effectiveness is controversial. This research aims to assess the application of prokinetics for the prevention of post-stroke pneumonia.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We searched the databases Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus for RCTs up to November 2024. The outcome of interest was incidence pneumonia, and we assessed bias using RoB 2 and ROBINS-1.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, 326 articles were screened and 3 RCTs, comprising 600 patients, were included. There were 291 patients in the intervention group and 309 in the control group. Risk ratio for pneumonia was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.50-1.27, P>0.05), which showed no significant reduction. High heterogeneity was observed (I2=87%, P<0.001). Thirty- and 90-day mortality was not significantly different (RR=0.93, 95% CI: 0.75-1.17, P=0.349, I2=5%). Functional independence (mRS) was marginally better in some cases but not of clinical significance, with high heterogeneity (I2=82.2%). Neurological improvement (NIHSS) had variable results, with no overall benefit that reached statistical significance (pooled effect size = -0.05, 95% CI: -0.62-0.51, P=0.057, I2=72.4%). The variation observed limits the confidence in these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Prokinetics have no relationship with pneumonia in patients with nasogastric…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 600 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free