ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2025
Repeated ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction for pediatric intussusception: attempt number, interval, and success.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of ultrasound-guided hydrostatic versus fluoroscopy-guided air reduction for pediatric intussusception: a severity-adjusted cohort analysis.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
- Bedside ultrasound-assisted manual reduction in ultrasound-selected, non-transient pediatric intussusception: a single-center experience.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the effects of the number of attempts, the interval between attempts, and their interaction with sonographic features on the ultimate success rate of repeated ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction (UGHR) in pediatric intussusception, and to determine the reasonable upper limit for the number of attempts and the optimal interval time.
methodsThis multicenter retrospective cohort study included children admitted to four large pediatric medical centers between January 2020 and December 2024 who received at least one repeated UGHR attempt after initial failure. Detailed clinical, sonographic, and procedural data from multiple reduction attempts were collected. The relationships between interval time, number of repeated attempts, and the success rate were analyzed.
resultsAmong 318 children, the cumulative non-operative success rate was 78.9%. Success declined steeply beyond the third attempt (69.8% for the second, 57.7% for the third, 20.0% for the fourth). A ≤ 60-min interval and improving sonographic bowel-wall thickness and vascularity independently favored reduction.
conclusionsFor children who fail initial UGHR, actively pursuing a second attempt is recommended if vital signs are stable, and the interval should ideally not exceed 60 min. Limiting the total number of non-operative reduction attempts to three is reasonable. Sonographic monitoring for improvements in bowel wall edema and blood flow provides crucial guidance for deciding whether to continue attempts.
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.