Brandes J W, Steckhahn D
Medizinische Klinik I, Städtisches Klinikum, Braunschweig.
Biomed Tech (Berl). 1991 May;36(5):99-104. doi: 10.1515/bmte.1991.36.5.99.
In a prospective cross-over study involving 30 patients, three different pump systems for artificial enteral nutrition were compared: the Nutromat, Flexiflo, and Frenta systems. Depending upon the degree of acceptance, a controlled sequence of priority of the pump systems was established. In addition, 12 functions and features of the different systems were scored using a scoring key (scores: +2, +1, +/- 0, -1, -2). The Nutromat was adjudged the best system by 53% of the patients, the Flexiflo system was preferred by 30%, and the Frenta system by 17%, of the patients. In the average overall rating of functions and features, the Nutromat scored 1.3 ("good"), the Flexiflo 0.8 ("satisfactory"), and the Frenta system 0.4 ("adequate"). All in all, more than half the patients assessed the Nutromat as the most pleasant and also best pump system.
在一项涉及30名患者的前瞻性交叉研究中,对三种不同的人工肠内营养泵系统进行了比较:Nutromat、Flexiflo和Frenta系统。根据接受程度,确定了泵系统优先级的受控顺序。此外,使用评分标准(分数:+2、+1、+/-0、-1、-2)对不同系统的12项功能和特性进行了评分。53%的患者认为Nutromat是最佳系统,30%的患者更喜欢Flexiflo系统,17%的患者更喜欢Frenta系统。在功能和特性的平均总体评分中,Nutromat得分为1.3(“良好”),Flexiflo为0.8(“满意”),Frenta系统为0.4(“足够”)。总体而言,超过一半的患者将Nutromat评为最舒适且也是最佳的泵系统。