Trial reportWorld journal of gastroenterology2016
Effects of premedication with Pronase for endoscopic ultrasound of the stomach: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in World journal of gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical study of pronase for improving visibility and safety in colonoscopy.Chinese medical journal · 2026Trial
- Exploration of the optimal regimen of gastric mucosal cleansing medication for theFrontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo analyze the effects of premedication with Pronase for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) examination of the stomach.
methodsThis was a prospective, randomized and controlled clinical study. All patients were randomly assigned to either the Pronase group or placebo group. The pretreatment solution was a mixed solution of 20000 U of Pronase and 60 mL sodium bicarbonate solution in the Pronase group, while an equal amount of sodium bicarbonate solution was administered to the placebo group. All operators, image evaluators and experimental recorders in EUS did not participate in the preparation and allocation of pretreatment solution. Two blinded investigators assessed the obscurity scores for the EUS images according to the size of artifacts (including ultrasound images of the gastric cavity and the gastric wall). Differences in imaging quality, the duration of examination and the usage of physiological saline during the examination process between the Pronase group and the control group were compared.
resultsNo differences existed in patient demographics between the two groups. For the gastric cavity, the Pronase group had significantly lower mean obscurity scores than the placebo group (1.0476 ± 0.77
conclusionThe group that had Pronase premedication prior to the EUS examination had clearer images than the placebo group. With Pronase premedication, the examination time was shorter, and the amount of saline used during the EUS examination was less.
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.