Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41180717›Full record

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.

Ruaa Mustafa Qafesha, Israa Sharabati, Muataz Kashbour, Menna Elbadry, Hatem Eldeeb, Baraa M Ayesh, Asmaa Elganady, Mahmoud Shaaban Abdelgalil, Mohammed Abdulrazzak, Afnan W M Jobran

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Ruaa Mustafa QafeshaFaculty of Medicine, Al-Quds University, Jerusalem, Palestine.
Israa SharabatiFaculty of Medicine, Al-Quds University, Jerusalem, Palestine.
Muataz KashbourMedical Research Group of Egypt, Negida Academy, Arlington, Massachusetts.
Menna ElbadryMedical Research Group of Egypt, Negida Academy, Arlington, Massachusetts.
Hatem EldeebMedical Research Group of Egypt, Negida Academy, Arlington, Massachusetts.
Baraa M AyeshFaculty of Medicine, Al-Quds University, Jerusalem, Palestine.
Asmaa ElganadyMedical Research Group of Egypt, Negida Academy, Arlington, Massachusetts.
Mahmoud Shaaban AbdelgalilMedical Research Group of Egypt, Negida Academy, Arlington, Massachusetts.
Mohammed AbdulrazzakFaculty of Medicine, University of Aleppo, Aleppo, Syria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0807-9000
Afnan W M JobranFaculty of Medicine, Al-Quds University, Jerusalem, Palestine.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

enema reductionintussusceptionliquid reductionmeta-analysispediatric intussusceptionpneumatic reduction

Identifiers

PMID41180717
PMCPMC12577984

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.