ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025
Pneumatic versus liquid enema reduction in the management of pediatric intussusception: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 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
- When It Is Not NEC: Recognizing Mimics of Necrotizing Enterocolitis in Preterm Infants.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and importance: Intussusception is the most frequent cause of bowel obstruction in infants. Most cases are managed nonsurgically with liquid or enema reduction. Our study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of air versus liquid enema reduction for the treatment of intussusception in pediatric patients. Materials and methods: A literature search was conducted on electronic databases, and the references of all included studies were searched to identify additional relevant studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis included studies that compared the use of air and liquid enemas in pediatric patients with intussusception. The primary outcomes assessed were reduction success, perforation, and recurrence rates. Secondary outcomes included hospital stay duration, reduction time, reduction pressure, and fluoroscopy time. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Results: Twenty-nine studies were included in the analysis, encompassing 9281 patients. The pneumatic reduction was significantly associated with a higher success rate (risk ratio: 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI]: {1.12, 1.34}) and a shorter reduction time (mean difference [MD]: -2.64, 95% CI: [-4.73, -0.55]). No significant difference was found between the two procedures in terms of perforation rate, recurrence rate, length of hospital stays, reduction pressure, and fluoroscopy. Subgroup analysis revealed that pneumatic reduction had higher success rates in both RCTs and cohort studies and was superior to liquid reduction before the year 2011. After 2011, both techniques had similar success rates. Pneumatic reduction also showed higher success rates in both children's and non-children's hospitals and among the general radiologists' subgroup, though pediatric radiologists achieved similar success rates with both techniques. Conclusions: Pneumatic enema reduction offers higher success and faster treatment for pediatric intussusception, with comparable safety to hydrostatic methods, supporting its use as the preferred nonsurgical approach. Further comparative studies are recommended to examine radiation dose and fluoroscopy time.
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.