ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound
Transcutaneous partial pressure of carbon dioxide monitoring during EUS-guided drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections using carbon dioxide insufflation: A prospective study.
Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. 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.
- Increased risk of respiratory events during endobronchial ultrasound examination in patients with reduced forced expiratory volume: a prospective observational study.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Pitfalls in interventional EUS procedures and coping strategies for endoscopy assistants (with video).Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCarbon dioxide (CO PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients who underwent EUS-guided PFC drainage between September 2015 and December 2016 at Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University were prospectively enrolled in this study. [INSIDE:2] was measured in all patients using a noninvasive sensor throughout the procedure.
resultsThere were 25 patients eligible to be included in this study. The mean procedure time was 53.1 min. The mean [INSIDE:2] level was 40 ± 4 mmHg and 48 ± 5 mmHg before and after the procedure, respectively. The mean peak [INSIDE:2] during the procedure was significantly higher at 53 ± 6 mmHg (P < 0.0001). No complications associated with CO
conclusions[INSIDE:2] monitoring can accurately reflect the level of [INSIDE:3] continuously and noninvasively. CO
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.