Trial reportPediatric surgery international2023
A comparison of the success rate of pneumatic reduction in intussusception between general anesthesia and deep sedation: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Pediatric surgery international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06365333 (Pneumatic Reduction For Intussusception In Children), which is not on this 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.
Pneumatic Reduction For Intussusception In Children: A Retrospective Cohort Study In An Ultrahigh Volume Center
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasound-guided hydrostatic enema reduction for recurrent intussusception in children: a retrospective analysis of 215 cases.Pediatric surgery international · 2025Article
- Developing a nomogram to predict recurrent intussusception after pneumatic reduction of primary intussusception in children.BMC surgery · 2024Article
- Intussusception reduction methods in daily practice-a survey by the European Society of Paediatric Radiology Abdominal Imaging Taskforce.Pediatric radiology · 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
15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study was aimed to compare the success rate between patients who underwent general anesthesia and deep sedation.
methodsPatients who were diagnosed with intussusception and had no contraindications would receive non-operative treatment first by undergoing pneumatic reduction. The patients were then split in to two groups: one group underwent general anesthesia (GA group), while the other underwent deep sedation (SD group). This study was a randomized controlled trial which compared success rate between two groups.
resultsA total of 49 episodes diagnosed with intussusception were random into 25 episodes in GA group and 24 episodes in SD group. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristic between the two groups. The success rates of GA group and SD group were equally 88.0% (p = 1.00). Sub-analysis of the success rate was lower in the patients with high-risk score for failed reduction. (Chiang Mai University Intussusception (CMUI) failed score in success VS failed = 6.9 ± 3.2 vs. 10.3 ± 3.0 p = 0.017).
conclusionGeneral anesthesia and deep sedation offered similar success rates. In cases of high risk of failure, general anesthesia should be considered to accommodate the switch to surgical management in the same setting if the non-operative approach fails. The appropriate treatment and sedative protocol also increase the success of reduction.
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.