ArticleiGIE : innovation, investigation and insights2024
Unsedated transnasal endoscopy experience at a tertiary referral center in India.
Article in iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights, 2024. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) was developed in the 1990s but has not gained widespread use. We present our experience with uTNE at a tertiary referral center in India. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted with prospectively collected data of patients who underwent uTNE for predominantly diagnostic EGD at our center between January 2014 and September 2017. Patients received 2% lidocaine spray over the back of the throat, xylometazoline, and 10% lidocaine sprays in the nostril 10 minutes before uTNE. Successful completion of TNE without the need for sedation, conversion to peroral EGD (PO-EGD), epistaxis, and tolerance of the procedure compared with prior PO-EGD were the outcomes of interest. Unsedated PO-EGD (uPO-EGD) is the standard of care at our center. Logistic regression was used for analysis. Results: Successful completion of uTNE (414/440 patients) was significantly associated with male sex (odds ratio [OR], 2.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-6.14). Conversion to PO-EGD (4.32%) was significantly associated with age (OR, .96; 95% CI, .94-.99), year of endoscopy (OR, .44; 95% CI, .24-.82), and male sex (OR, .33; 95% CI, .12-.89) in multivariable analysis. Rate of epistaxis was 6.76%, and 93.09% of patients (229/246) tolerated uTNE better than prior PO-EGD. There were no life-threatening or major adverse events requiring prolonged hospitalization. Conclusions: uTNE should be offered as an alternative to uPO-EGD for diagnostic EGD. Studies comparing tolerance and adverse events of uTNE with those of sedated PO-EGD are required given the costs and potential adverse events associated with sedation.
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.