Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29868627›Full record

ArticleEndoscopy international open2018

Carbon dioxide versus air insufflation enteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.

Julio Cesar Martins Aquino, Wanderley Marques Bernardo, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura, Flávio Hiroshi Ananias Morita, Rodrigo Silva de Paula Rocha, Maurício Kazuyoshi Minata, Martin Coronel, Gustavo Luís da Silva Rodela, Robson Kiyoshi Ishida, Rogério Kuga and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Endoscopy international open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. COEndoscopy international open · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Julio Cesar Martins AquinoGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit of Hospital das Clínicas of São Paulo University, São Paulo 05403-000, São Paulo, Brazil.
Wanderley Marques BernardoDepartment of Surgery of Hospital das Clínicas of São Paulo University, São Paulo 05403-000, São Paulo, Brazil.
Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de MouraGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit of Hospital das Clínicas of São Paulo University, São Paulo 05403-000, São Paulo, Brazil.
Flávio Hiroshi Ananias MoritaGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit of Hospital das Clínicas of São Paulo University, São Paulo 05403-000, São Paulo, Brazil.
Rodrigo Silva de Paula RochaGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit of Hospital das Clínicas of São Paulo University, São Paulo 05403-000, São Paulo, Brazil.
Maurício Kazuyoshi MinataGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit of Hospital das Clínicas of São Paulo University, São Paulo 05403-000, São Paulo, Brazil.
Martin CoronelGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit of Hospital das Clínicas of São Paulo University, São Paulo 05403-000, São Paulo, Brazil.
Gustavo Luís da Silva RodelaGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit of Hospital das Clínicas of São Paulo University, São Paulo 05403-000, São Paulo, Brazil.
Robson Kiyoshi IshidaGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit of Hospital das Clínicas of São Paulo University, São Paulo 05403-000, São Paulo, Brazil.
Rogério KugaGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit of Hospital das Clínicas of São Paulo University, São Paulo 05403-000, São Paulo, Brazil.
Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de MouraGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit of Hospital das Clínicas of São Paulo University, São Paulo 05403-000, São Paulo, Brazil.
Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare the insufflation of CO SEARCH SOURCES: The investigators researched the electronic databases MedLine, Cochrane Library, Central, LILACS, BVS, Scopus and Cinahl. The grey search was conducted in the base of theses of the University of São Paulo, books of digestive endoscopy and references of selected articles and in previous systematic revisions. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The evaluation of eligibility was performed independently, in a non-blind manner, by two reviewers, firstly by title and abstract, followed by complete text. Disagreements between the reviewers were resolved by consensus. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

methodThrough the spreadsheet of data extraction, where one author extracted the data and a second author checked the extraction. Disagreements were resolved by debate between the two reviewers. The quality analysis of the studies was performed using the Jadad score. The software RevMan 5 version 5.3 was used for the meta-analysis.

resultsFour randomized clinical trials were identified, totaling 473 patients submitted to enteroscopy and comparing insufflation of CO LIMITATIONS: Restricted number of randomized clinical trials and nonuniformity of data were limitations to the analysis of the outcomes.

conclusionThe use of CO

Identifiers

PMID29868627
PMCPMC5979198
OpenAlexW2804548672

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.