ArticlePediatric radiology2015
Radiation dose in pneumatic reduction of ileo-colic intussusceptions--results from a single-institution study.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transient and persistent small-bowel intussusception in children: a decision tree analysis model based on ultrasound and clinical findings.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction of intussusception: comparison of success rates between subspecialized pediatric radiologists and non-pediatric radiologists or radiology residents.European journal of pediatrics · 2023Article
- Ultrasound-guided reduction of intussusception: a safe and effective method performed by pediatric surgeons.Pediatric surgery international · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAir enema under fluoroscopy is a well-accepted procedure for the treatment of childhood intussusception. However, the reported radiation doses of pneumatic reduction with conventional fluoroscopy units have been high in decades past.
objectiveTo compare current radiation doses at our institution to past doses reported by others for fluoroscopic-guided pneumatic reduction of ileo-colic intussusception in children. MATERIALS AND
methodsSince 2007 radiologists and residents in our department who perform reduction of intussusceptions have received a radiation risk training. We retrospectively analyzed the data of 45 children (5 months-8 years) who underwent a total of 48 pneumatic reductions of ileo-colic intussusception between 2008 and 2012. We analyzed data for screening time and dose area product (DAP) and compared these data to those reported up to and including the year 2000.
resultsOur mean screening time measured by the DAP-meter was 53.8 s (range 1-320 s, median 33.0 s). The mean DAP was 11.4 cGy ∙ cm(2) (range 1-145 cGy ∙ cm(2), median 5.45 cGy ∙ cm(2)). There was one bowel perforation, in a 1-year-old boy requiring surgical revision. Only three studies in the literature presented radiation exposure results on children who received pneumatic or hydrostatic reduction of intussusception under fluoroscopy. Screening times and dose area products in those studies, which were published in the 1990 s and in the year 2000, were substantially higher than those in our sample.
conclusionLow-frequency pulsed fluoroscopy and other dose-saving keys as well as the radiation risk training might have helped to improve the quality of the procedure in terms of radiation exposure.
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.