ArticleBMJ open2026
What is the diagnostic accuracy of contrast enema for Hirschsprung disease during COVID-19 service disruption in Vietnam? A retrospective study.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of contrast enema for Hirschsprung disease in children when preoperative rectal suction biopsy was unavailable and to examine age-related diagnostic performance and the utility of individual radiographic signs.
designRetrospective diagnostic accuracy study.
settingA high-volume tertiary paediatric surgical centre in Hanoi, Vietnam, during a period of COVID-19 related service disruption from May 2020 to October 2021.
participants354 consecutive children aged 0 to under 16 years who underwent contrast enema for suspected Hirschsprung disease. Final diagnosis was established by intraoperative frozen section and postoperative histopathology for operated patients and by clinical follow-up for non-operated patients.
interventionsNot applicable. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy of contrast enema versus the reference standard, expressed as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value with 95% CIs. Secondary outcomes were age-stratified accuracy and the performance of individual radiographic signs.
resultsAmong 354 children, contrast enema yielded 131 true positives, 19 false positives, 20 false negatives and 184 true negatives. Overall sensitivity was 86.75% (95% CI 80.43 to 91.26), specificity 90.64% (95% CI 85.85 to 93.93), positive predictive value 87.33% (95% CI 81.06 to 91.74) and negative predictive value 90.20% (95% CI 85.34 to 93.56). Sensitivity was higher in children aged 1 month or less than in those older than 1 month, 96.00% vs 75.71%, whereas specificity was lower, 80.00% vs 97.67%. Of the individual radiographic signs, the inverted rectosigmoid index was the most sensitive, while the irregular mucosal pattern was the most specific.
conclusionsContrast enema showed moderate to high diagnostic accuracy for Hirschsprung disease in this biopsy-constrained setting and may be useful as a triage tool within a limited diagnostic pathway. However, its false negative rate indicates that it should not be used as a standalone rule-out test when histological confirmation is available.
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.