ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
Evaluating the effect of NPO status on mucosal coating during double contrast barium esophagrams.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCurrent guidelines for double contrast barium esophagography studies (BAS) suggest that patients should be nil per os (NPO) prior to completing BAS for optimal esophageal coating, although the time required varies between practices and institutions. It is believed that consumption of food or water disrupts the ability for thick barium contrast to properly coat the esophageal mucosa. Exams that are rescheduled for this reason can lead to delays in care, without substantial evidence that NPO status truly affects esophageal mucosal coating for these exams with current barium mixtures.
objectiveThe study aims to identify the necessity, or lack thereof, of standard NPO protocol in patients undergoing BAS, in effort to prevent unnecessary procedural delay. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study is an IRB-approved HIPAA-compliant study of 370 consecutive adult patients (115 male/255 female, mean age 55) who underwent BAS at our institution from January to June of 2022. Patients were divided into two groups: < 4 h NPO (n = 334), and ≥ 4 h NPO (n = 36). Four abdominal radiologists blinded to NPO interval independently reviewed a random sample of approximately 92 patients (91-94) and graded esophageal coating on a 4-point-scale with 1 being insufficient coating and 4 being optimal coating.
resultsNo significant statistical difference in mean esophageal coating score was found between the ≥ 4 h NPO cohort (3.04 ± SD 0.78) and the < 4 h NPO cohort (2.97 ± SD 0.70; P = 0.54). Subset analysis of patients who were NPO for < 2 h (n = 9) also showed no significant difference in mean esophageal coating score (3.11 ± SD 0.6; P = 0.92), compared to the standard ≥ 4 NPO status.
conclusionNon-adherence to standard NPO protocol prior to BAS studies did not result in a significant difference in esophageal coating when compared to traditional preprocedural fasting of 4 or more hours.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38683214What 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.