ArticleClinical and experimental pediatrics2025
Efficacy and safety of carbon dioxide versus room-air insufflation in pediatric colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Clinical and experimental pediatrics, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdequately powered studies in children are scarce and there are reports on the risk of carbon dioxide (CO2) retention after colonoscopy. PURPOSE: This study investigated the efficacy and safety of CO2 insufflation in children undergoing colonoscopy.
methodsThis prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted at a tertiary care hospital between March 2023 and July 2024. We recruited 200 consecutive children (age, 5-18 years; n=100 in each arm) who underwent colonoscopy under conscious sedation. Patients were randomized to receive CO2 or room air using a random number table. The primary outcome measure was postprocedural pain assessed by using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary outcome measures included time to reach the cecum, total procedure duration, abdominal distension, and end-tidal (ET) CO2 level. Complications were recorded.
resultsPain scores at 2 and 4 hours postprocedure were significantly lower in the CO2 versus room-air group (1.12 vs. 1.66, P=0.001 at 2 hours and 0.37 vs. 0.61, P=0.002 at 4 hours). The time to reach the cecum was significantly higher in the CO2 group (39.6 vs. 26.6 min, P=0.01). A greater proportion of children in the room-air group (29% vs. 19%, P=0.04) reported significant pain (VAS score, ≥3). The subgroup analysis revealed a significantly longer time to reach the cecum and total procedure duration in the CO2 group among first-year trainees. ET-CO2 levels were significantly higher in the CO2 group (36 [interquartile range, 35-37] mmHg vs. 34 [interquartile range, 32-35] mmHg, P=0.001), but none developed any signs of CO2 retention. No significant intergroup differences were noted in abdominal girth, bloating sensation, analgesic requirements, or procedure-related complications.
conclusionsCO2 insufflation is safer and makes the procedure less painful but slower than room-air insufflation, especially in first-year trainees, without an increased risk of retention.
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.