ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2014
Is the type of insufflation a key issue in gastro-intestinal endoscopy?
Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Carbon Dioxide vs. Air Insufflation for Pediatric Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Pooled it
- CO2 insufflation versus air insufflation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.PloS one · 2017Pooled it
- Carbonated soft drink for gastric preparation for magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy: An open-label randomized controlled trial.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Trial
- Gel immersion in endoscopy: Exploring potential applications.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy of Upper Gastrointestinal Anastomotic Leaks: How to Deal with the Challenges (with Video).Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Efficacy and safety of carbon dioxide insufflation versus air insufflation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2019Review
- Perforation causing abdominal compartment syndrome after colonoscopic polypectomy: A case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2019Article
- Safety of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients undergoing carbon dioxide insufflation in extended endoscopic procedures.Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopic procedures continue to play an emerging role in diagnosing and treating upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) disorders. In particular, the introduction of colonoscopy in bowel cancer screening has underlined its promising role in decreasing the incidence of colorectal cancer and reducing tumour related mortality. To achieve these goals patients need to contemplate endoscopic examinations as painless and fearless procedures. The use of carbon dioxide (CO₂) as an alternative insufflation gas in comparison to air has been considered as an essential key to improving patients' acceptance in undergoing endoscopic procedures. CO₂ is absorbed quickly through the bowel mucosa causing less luminal distension and potentially less abdominal pain. However, its exact role has not been defined completely. In particular, the beneficial use of CO₂ in upper GI endoscopy and in sedated patients is still conflicting. In the present review, we aimed to assess the current evidence for using CO₂ in endoscopy and to evaluate its potential role in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.