Trial reportArquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery
COLONOSCOPY: RANDOMIZED COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INSUFFLATION WITH CARBON DIOXIDE VERSUS AIR.
Trial report in Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of carbon dioxide versus room air insufflation on post-colonoscopic pain: A prospective, randomized, controlled study.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2020Trial
- NEW BOWEL PREPARATION TECHNIQUE FOR COLONOSCOPY: CLINICAL TRIAL COMPARING AQUANET AND MANNITOL.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2018Trial
- Implementation of the Aldrete score reduces recovery time after non-anesthesiologist-administered procedural sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy.Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Brazil, an increasing number of people are submitted to colonoscopy, either for screening or for therapeutic purposes.
aimTo evaluate whether there are advantages of using carbon dioxide (CO2) over air for insufflation.
methodsTwo hundred and ten of 219 patients were considered eligible for this study and were randomized into two groups according to the gas insufflation used: Air Group (n=104) and CO2 Group (n=97). The study employed a double-blind design.
resultsThe Air and CO2 Groups were similar in respect to bowel preparation evaluated using the Boston scale, age, gender, previous surgery, maneuvers necessary for the advancement of the device, and presence of polyps, tumors or signs of diverticulitis. However, "waking up with pain" and "pain at discharge" were more prevalent in the Air Group, albeit not statistically significant, with post-exam bloating seen only in the Air Group. The responses to a questionnaire, applied to analyze the late post-exam period, showed more comfort with the use of CO2.
conclusionsThe use of CO2 is better than air as it avoids post-examination bloating, thereby providing greater comfort to patients.
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.