ArticleDEN open2025
Clinical assessment of computed tomography for detecting ingested blister packs: A single-center retrospective study.
Article in DEN open, 2025. 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.
- Article
- Diagnostic challenges in surfactant poisoning: A case of dishwashing detergent ingestion in a dementia patient.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2026Article
- Ileocecal Tuberculosis was Incidentally Diagnosed after Ingesting a Blister Pill Pack.The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Blister pack (BP) ingestion poses serious risks, such as gastrointestinal perforation, and accurate localization by computed tomography (CT) is a common practice. However, while it has been reported in vitro that CT visibility varies with the material type of BPs, there have been no reports on this variability in clinical settings. In this study, we investigated the CT detection rates of different BPs in clinical settings. Methods: This single-center retrospective study from 2010 to 2022 included patients who underwent endoscopic foreign body removal for BP ingestion. The patients were categorized into two groups for BP components, the polypropylene (PP) and the polyvinyl chloride (PVC)/polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC) groups. The primary outcome was the comparison of CT detection rates between the groups. We also evaluated whether the BPs contained tablets and analyzed their locations. Results: This study included 61 patients (15 in the PP group and 46 in the PVC/PVDC group). Detection rates were 97.8% for the PVC/PVDC group compared to 53.3% for the PP group, a significant difference ( Conclusions: Even in a clinical setting, the detection rates of PVC and PVDC were higher than that of PP alone. Identifying PP without tablets has proven challenging in clinical. Considering the risk of perforation, these findings suggest that esophagogastroduodenoscopy may be necessary, even if CT detection is negative.
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.