ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
Impact of pediatric versus adult colonoscope on terminal ileum intubation: a retrospective study.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Numbers matter: How pediatric endoscopy quality varies with annual procedural volume.Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition · 2025Article
- Terminal ileal intubation is not necessary in routine colonoscopy: data from a large-scale retrospective study.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Various possible predictors of successful terminal ileal intubation (TII) have been explored but the role of the type of colonoscope is unclear. Methods: We carried out a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database of all colonoscopies performed at a single endoscopy unit between May 2015 and July 2020. The primary outcome measure was successful TII in patients with specific indications for ileal examination. The primary predictor was the type of endoscope, pediatric or adult, used during the procedure. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Results: In 5845 colonoscopies fulfilling the study criteria, the overall TII rate was 67.8%. In univariate analysis, the use of a pediatric colonoscope was associated with a higher TII rate (72.1% vs. 58.8%, P<0.001). Other variables associated with successful TII based on univariate analysis included the patient's age, male sex, body mass index, endoscopists' specialty, place of training, shorter colonoscope insertion time, shorter duration of the procedure, longer withdrawal time, procedures performed in the afternoon, type of sedation administered during colonoscopy, and cleanliness of the colon. Multivariate analysis yielded an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21-1.62) for the use of a pediatric colonoscope. Propensity score-matching analysis also showed superiority of the pediatric colonoscope in achieving TII compared to an adult colonoscope, OR 1.35 (95%CI 1.17-1.57). Conclusions: Pediatric colonoscope increases the success of TII during colonoscopy. For endoscopists performing colonoscopy with intent to examine the terminal ileum, it is recommended to choose a pediatric colonoscope to maximize the success rate.
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.