ArticleMedicine2020
Sedative reduction method for children with intussusception.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a predictive model for surgical intervention following air enema reduction of pediatric intussusception.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Effects of General Anesthesia on the Success Rate of Pneumatic Reduction in the Treatment of Intussusception.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2024Article
- Developing a nomogram for predicting surgical intervention in pediatric intussusception after hydrostatic reduction.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Article
- Intussusception and COVID-19 in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Midazolam premedication in ileocolic intussusception: a retrospective multicenter study.European journal of pediatrics · 2022Article
- Effect of manipulative reduction combined with air enema on intestinal mucosal immune function in children with intussusception.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intussusception is common emergency condition in children. Pneumatic or hydrostatic reduction (HR) is considered the first-choice management strategy in cases lacking indications for surgical intervention. Generally, sedatives are not used in children undergoing interventional radiology procedures. Surgical management is associated with long hospitalization durations and high costs, unlike nonsurgical reduction. To avoid surgery, reduction procedures are repeated despite initial treatment failure. However, in cases involving repeated failures, children should be referred for surgery.To ensure good response to reduction, we planned HR under sedation during the third reduction attempt. Sedative reduction (SR) was performed with the administration of ketamine, midazolam, and atropine. All patients with contraindications against HR underwent laparoscopic reduction (LR) without HR.During 3 years, SR was performed in 43 patients, and in 28 (65.1%), the treatment was successful. Among the 15 patients in whom the procedure failed, 14 underwent LR without intestinal resection. There was no significant risk factor contributing to failed reduction under sedation.During the second or third HR attempt, successful reduction may be ensured with the SR procedure with intravenous ketamine, midazolam, and atropine; this procedure may further reduce surgery rates in pediatric intussusception.
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.