ArticleJournal of the anus, rectum and colon2019
A pilot study of a novel variable-stiffness stylet for efficient colonoscope insertion with
Article in Journal of the anus, rectum and colon, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe variable-stiffness colonoscope is reportedly useful for making colonoscope insertion easier. However, this function is not associated with all colonoscopes. We developed a variable-stiffness stylet that can be inserted into the endoscope instrumentation channel to change the rigidity of the endoscope.
methodsWe developed a stylet with adjustable stiffness and investigated its utility in colonoscope insertion using an
resultsIn all procedures, the endoscope was inserted up to the cecum. There were significantly fewer external abdominal compressions with the Stylet method (1/12, 8.3%) compared to the conventional method (6/12, 50%). The insertion time was shorter with the Stylet method (140.9 ± 53.7 s) compared to the conventional method (181.3 ± 64.9 s).
conclusionsUsing the variable-stiffness stylet, currently under development, resulted in significantly fewer external abdominal compressions and tended to have shorter insertion time.
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.