SynthesisPloS one2024
Air enema reduction versus hydrostatic enema reduction for intussusceptions in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Ultrasound-guided hydrostatic enema reduction for intussusception in children younger than 12 months: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Pooled it
- Determinants of ultrasound-guided reduction failure and pathological lead points in pediatric intussusception.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
- Research progress on the association between lymphoid hyperplasia and intussusception in the terminal ileum of children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- Clinical manifestation and treatment of intussusception in children aged 3 months and under : a single centre analysis of 38 cases.BMC pediatrics · 2025Observational
- Risk factors for failure of enema reduction of intussusception in children.Scientific reports · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of fluoroscopy-guided air enema reduction (FGAR) and ultrasound-guided hydrostatic enema reduction (UGHR) for the treatment of intussusception in pediatric patients.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted on retrospective studies obtained from various databases, including PUBMED, MEDLINE, Cochrane, Google Scholar, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang, and VIP Database. The search included publications from January 1, 2003, to March 31, 2023, with the last search done on Jan 15, 2023.
resultsWe included 49 randomized controlled studies and retrospective cohort studies involving a total of 9,391 patients, with 4,841 in the UGHR and 4,550 in the FGAR. Specifically, UGHR exhibited a significantly shorter time to reduction (WMD = -4.183, 95% CI = (-5.402, -2.964), P < 0.001), a higher rate of successful reduction (RR = 1.128, 95% CI = (1.099, 1.157), P < 0.001), and a reduced length of hospital stay (WMD = -1.215, 95% CI = (-1.58, -0.85), P < 0.001). Furthermore, UGHR repositioning was associated with a diminished overall complication rate (RR = 0.296, 95% CI = (0.225, 0.389), P < 0.001) and a lowered incidence of perforation (RR = 0.405, 95% CI = (0.244, 0.670), P < 0.001).
conclusionUGHR offers the benefits of being non-radioactive, achieving a shorter reduction time, demonstrating a higher success rate in repositioning in particular, resulting in a reduced length of postoperative hospital stay, and yielding a lower overall incidence of postoperative complications, including a reduced risk of associated perforations.
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.