ArticlePediatric radiology2017
Intussusception reduction: Effect of air vs. liquid enema on radiation dose.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rebound of pediatric idiopathic ileocolic intussusception following the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal follow-up study.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Pneumatic versus liquid enema reduction in the management of pediatric intussusception: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- Predicting bowel necrosis in pediatric acute intussusception using roundness and other related factors.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
- Impact of a 6-12-h delay between ileocolic intussusception diagnostic US and fluoroscopic reduction on patients' outcomes.Pediatric radiology · 2024Article
- That's GROSS! Practical steps towards sustainability in pediatric radiology.Pediatric radiology · 2024Article
- Intussusception Management in Children: A 15-Year Experience in a Referral Center.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2023Article
- Ultrasound-guided pneumatic reduction of intussusception in children: 15-year experience in a tertiary children's hospital.Pediatric radiology · 2023Review
- Fluoroscopic criteria for on-site evaluation of failed intussusception reduction during air enema technique.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- The impact of social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic on rates of pediatric idiopathic intussusception.Pediatric radiology · 2022Article
- Ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction versus fluoroscopy-guided air reduction for pediatric intussusception: a multi-center, prospective, cohort study.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2021Observational
- A primer for pediatric radiologists on infection control in an era of COVID-19.Pediatric radiology · 2020Review
- Air contrast enema reduction of single and recurrent ileocolic intussusceptions in children: patterns, management and outcomes.Pediatric radiology · 2020Article
- Comparative safety and efficacy of balloon use in air enema reduction for pediatric intussusception.Pediatric radiology · 2018Article
- Female gonadal shielding with automatic exposure control increases radiation risks.Pediatric radiology · 2018Article
- Effectiveness and safety of ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction for children with acute intussusception.Science progressArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBoth air and radiopaque liquid contrast are used to reduce ileocolic intussusception under fluoroscopy. Some suggest air lowers radiation dose due to shorter procedure times. However, air enema likely lowers radiation dose regardless of fluoroscopy time due to less density over the automatic exposure control cells.
objectivesWe test the hypothesis that air enema reduction of ileocolic intussusception results in lower radiation dose than liquid contrast enema independent of fluoroscopy time. We describe a role for automatic exposure control in this dose difference. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively evaluated air and liquid intussusception reductions performed on a single digital fluoroscopic unit during a 26-month period. We compared patient age, weight, gender, exam time of day and year, performing radiologist(s), radiographic image acquisitions, grid and magnification use, fluoroscopy time and dose area product. We compared categorical and continuous variables statistically using chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests, respectively.
resultsThe mean dose area product was 2.7-fold lower for air enema, 1.3 ± 0.9 dGy·cm
conclusionFluoroscopic intussusception reduction using air enema uses less than half the radiation dose of liquid contrast enema. Dose savings are independent of fluoroscopy time and are likely due to automatic exposure control interaction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28578475What 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.