ArticleBMC pediatrics2022
Diagnostic value of the microcolon using ultrasonography in small bowel atresia.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anatomical location of small bowel atresia independently predicts preterm delivery: a two-center study in Southern Japan.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
- Diagnostic significance of microcolon findings in neonatal contrast enema for patients with intestinal atresia.Pediatric surgery international · 2025Article
- The multivariate cox regression model for complete enteral nutrition after primary anastomosis in neonates with intestinal atresia.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
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
backgroundMicrocolon helps diagnose small bowel atresia (SBA) using contrast enema. However, there are no ultrasonography (US) microcolon criteria for diagnosing SBA. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate colon accuracy and other characteristics for diagnosing SBA by US, using surgical or clinical information as the reference standard.
methodsUS was performed on 46 neonates aged ≤ 7 days old. In the study group (n = 15), neonates with SBA were confirmed following surgery. In the study group without SBA (n = 15), neonates with other gastrointestinal problems besides SBA were confirmed by surgical or clinical follow-up. Sixteen neonates without gastrointestinal problems were classified as the control group. The colonic diameter was measured, and colonic gas was sought and observed. Statistical analysis was performed to compare US parameters between the study group and other two groups. The optimal cut-off value of the colonic diameter for SBA diagnosis was obtained using receiver operating characteristic analysis.
resultsColonic diameters (0.5 cm) in the study group (interquartile ranges [IQR], 0.5-0.6 cm) was significantly smaller than that in the group without SBA (0.9 cm; IQR, 0.8-1.2 cm) (P < 0.001) and in the control group (1.2 cm; IQR, 0.8-1.35 cm) (P < 0.001). Optimum cut-off value for diagnosing SBA was 0.65 cm (sensitivity, 90.3%; specificity, 86.7%; accuracy, 89.1%) for the colonic diameter. Combining microcolon and gas-negativity showed the best performance in SBA diagnosis using US, with increased accuracy (91.3%).
conclusionA colon < 0.65 cm in diameter should be called a microcolon; combining US with gas-negativity is an essential diagnostic basis for SBA.
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.