ArticleNeurogastroenterology and motility2023
Evaluation of abdominal gas by plain abdominal radiographs.
Article in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- European Consensus on Functional Bloating and Abdominal Distension-An ESNM/UEG Recommendations for Clinical Management.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025Guideline
- Low-dose abdominal radiography based on high peak kilovoltage: image quality at standard dose abdominal radiography and potentially 64% dose reduction in a randomized trial.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Evaluation of abdominal gas by plain abdominal radiographs.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2023Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOur aim was to determine the reliability of plain abdominal radiographs for the evaluation of abdominal gas content in patients with functional digestive symptoms.
methodsAbdominal CT scan scout views, mimicking a conventional plain abdominal radiograph, were obtained from 30 patients both during episodes of abdominal distension and basal conditions. Physicians (n = 50) were instructed to rate the estimated volume of gas in the 60 images presented in random sequence using a scale graded from 0 to ≥600 ml. KEY
resultsThe gas volumes estimated in the scout views differed from those measured by CT by a median of 90 (95% CI 70-102) ml, and the misestimation was not related to the absolute volume in the image. The accuracy of the observers, measured by their mean misestimation, was not related to their specialty or the training status (misestimation by 96 (95% CI 85-104) ml in staff vs 78 (70-106) ml in residents; p = 0.297). The accuracy was independent of the order of presentation of the images. Gas volume measured by CT in the images obtained during episodes of abdominal distension differed by a median of 39 (95% CI 29-66) ml from those during basal conditions, and this difference was misestimated by a median of 107 (95% CI 94-119) ml. The accuracy of these estimations was not related to the absolute gas volumes (R = -0.352; p < 0.001) or the magnitude of the differences. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Plain abdominal radiographs have limited value for the evaluation of abdominal gas volume in patients with functional gut disorders.
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.