Observational studyMedicine2026
Pathological lead points in pediatric secondary intussusception: A single-center retrospective observational study of five common etiologies.
Observational study in Medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While most pediatric intussusceptions are idiopathic, secondary cases differ significantly in clinical presentation, treatment strategies, and prognosis due to the presence of pathological lead points (PLPs). Accurate PLP identification is crucial for optimizing diagnosis and treatment. This study aims to compare clinical and imaging features across PLP types to improve recognition and intervention efficiency for secondary intussusception. This study investigates common PLPs in pediatric secondary intussusception and compare their epidemiological characteristics, clinical manifestations, imaging features, treatment responses, and recurrence patterns, with the goal of enhancing preoperative PLP identification and optimizing individualized management strategies. In this single-center retrospective observational study, we analyzed clinical data from 3013 intussusception patients treated at Zhangzhou Hospital Affiliated to Fujian Medical University between January 2018 and December 2023. Among them, 111 cases confirmed surgically/pathologically as secondary intussusception were categorized into 5 PLP groups: Meckel diverticulum, intestinal polyps, intestinal duplication, lymphoma, and Henoch-Schönlein purpura (HSP). Comparisons were made across groups regarding gender, age, symptoms, intussusception type, ultrasound findings, air enema success rate, intestinal necrosis, and recurrence. Secondary intussusception accounted for 3.7% of total cases. PLP types showed distinct age and sex distributions and differences in selected clinical and therapeutic features. Meckel diverticulum and duplication predominated in males < 2 years, polyps in females aged 2 to 6 years, and lymphoma/HSP in children ≥ 6 years. The PLP group showed significantly lower enema success (52.0% vs 90.9%, P < .001), higher necrosis (10.8%), and recurrence rates (45.9%) versus idiopathic cases. Ultrasound demonstrated varying diagnostic accuracy: higher for Meckel diverticulum/polyps but limited for lymphoma/HSP. Each PLP type exhibited distinct intussusception patterns, recurrence modes, and treatment requirements. Pediatric secondary intussusception has identifiable etiologies, and PLP types were associated with differences in onset age, imaging features, and clinical pathways. High suspicion for PLPs is warranted in recurrent cases, older children, and those with atypical imaging. While ultrasound provides valuable PLP detection, its limitations suggest the need for a multiparameter predictive model to enable precise preoperative identification and personalized treatment optimization.
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.