Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21747649›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy2011

Carbon dioxide insufflation in routine colonoscopy is safe and more comfortable: results of a randomized controlled double-blinded trial.

M Geyer, U Guller, C Beglinger

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01633333 (Water Exchange Versus Carbon Dioxide Insufflation to Improve Colonoscopy Screening - a Randomized Controlled Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01633333 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2012, after this paper: background citation

Water Exchange Versus Carbon Dioxide Insufflation to Improve Colonoscopy Screening - a Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorSorlandet Hospital HFRan2012 to 2013Enrolled473ConditionsColorectal Cancer, Colorectal Adenomas, Colorectal Polyps, PainArmsWater exchange colonoscopy, Carbon dioxide insufflation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M GeyerGastroenterologie Wettingen, 5430 wettingen, Switzerland.
U Guller
C Beglinger
University Hospital of Basel · CHUniversity of Bern · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many patients experience pain and discomfort after colonoscopy. Carbon dioxide (CO(2)) can reduce periprocedural pain although air insufflation remained the standard procedure. The objective of this double-blinded, randomized controlled trial was to evaluate whether CO(2) insufflation does decrease pain and bloating during and after colonoscopy compared to room air. Methods. 219 consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to either CO(2) or air insufflation. Propofol was used in all patients for sedation. Transcutaneous CO(2) was continuously measured with a capnograph as a safety parameter. Pain, bloating, and overall satisfaction were assessed at regular intervals before and after the procedure. Results(data are mean ±SD). 110 patients were randomized to CO(2) and 109 to room air. The baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. The mean propofol dose was not different between the treatments, as were the time to reach the ileum and the withdrawal time. pCO(2) at the end of the procedure was 35.2 ± 4.3 mmHg (CO(2) group) versus 35.6 ± 6.0 mmHg in the room air group (P > .05). No relevant complication occurred in either group. There was significantly less bloating for the CO(2) group during the postprocedural recovery period (P < .001) and over the 24-hour period (P < .001). Also, patients with CO(2) insufflation experienced significantly less pain (P = .014). Finally, a higher overall satisfaction (P = .04 ) was found in the CO(2) group. Conclusions. This trial provides compelling evidence that CO(2) insufflation significantly reduces bloating and pain after routine colonoscopy in propofol-sedated patients. The procedure is safe with no significant differences in CO(2) between the two groups.

Identifiers

PMID21747649
PMCPMC3123829
OpenAlexW2050359914

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.