Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38088723›Full record

ArticleArquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery2023

THE WATER-SOLUBLE CONTRAST FOR ADHESIVE SMALL BOWEL OBSTRUCTION: ARE THERE ADVANTAGES?

Vinicius VON-Diemen, Bernardo Silveira Volkweis, Eduardo Ferreira Martins, Lara Luz de Miranda Silva, Leandro Totti Cavazzola

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. CLINICAL AND SURGICAL DILEMMAS IN OCTOGENARIAN PATIENTS WITH SMALL BOWEL OBSTRUCTION.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Vinicius VON-DiemenUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre University Hospital, General Surgery Service - Porto Alegre (RS), Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0291-2260
Bernardo Silveira VolkweisUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre University Hospital, General Surgery Service - Porto Alegre (RS), Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7130-893X
Eduardo Ferreira MartinsUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre University Hospital, General Surgery Service - Porto Alegre (RS), Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1944-1343
Lara Luz de Miranda SilvaUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre University Hospital, General Surgery Service - Porto Alegre (RS), Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6175-2877
Leandro Totti CavazzolaUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre University Hospital, General Surgery Service - Porto Alegre (RS), Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2356-2789

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdhesive small bowel obstruction is one of the most common causes of surgical emergencies, representing about 15% of hospital admissions. Defining the need and timing of surgical intervention still remains a challenge.

aimsTo report the experience of using meglumine-based water-soluble contrast in a tertiary hospital in southern Brazil, comparing with the world literature.

methodsPatients suspected of having adhesive small bowel obstruction, according to their clinical conditions, underwent an established protocol, consisting of the administration of water-soluble contrast, followed by plain abdominal radiograph within 12 hours and by a new clinical evaluation. The protocol was initiated after starting conservative management, including fasting and placement of a nasogastric tube, as well as intravenous fluid reposition.

resultsA total of 126 patients were submitted to the protocol. The water-soluble contrast test sensitivity and specificity after the first radiograph were 94.6 and 91.0%, respectively; after the second radiograph, these values were 92.3 and 100%. The general test values for sensitivity and specificity were 91.9 and 100%, respectively.

conclusionsThe measure parameters evaluated in this study were similar to those found in the literature, contributing to endorse the importance of this test in the evaluation of patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction. The particular relevance of this study was the similar results that were found using a different type of meglumine-based contrast, which is available in Brazil.

Indexed as

Diatrizoate MeglumineIntestinal ObstructionContrast MediaHumansMeglumineTissue AdhesionsWaterContrast MediaDiatrizoate MeglumineMeglumineWater

Identifiers

PMID38088723
PMCPMC10712923

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.