ArticleEndoscopy international open2019
Carbon dioxide versus room air for colonoscopy in deeply sedated pediatric patients: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04541667 (Is End Tidal CO2 Level Elevation During Upper Endoscopy With CO2 Gas Insufflation Physiologically Significant), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Is End Tidal CO2 Level Elevation During Upper Endoscopy With CO2 Gas Insufflation Physiologically Significant
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Carbon Dioxide vs. Air Insufflation for Pediatric Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Pooled it
- 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
- Insufflation of Carbon Dioxide versus Air During Colonoscopy Among Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Clinical endoscopy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.