ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2025
Utility of oral rehydration jelly in probe method endoscopic ultrasound: a prospective cohort study.
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: When performing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) using a miniature probe, filling the lumen with water is necessary. However, because of gravity and peristalsis, satisfactory images are often not obtained. Recently, it has been reported that injecting a viscous gel instead of water could facilitate EUS imaging. Objectives: To determine if EUS performed with rehydration jelly returned interpretable images when the standard method did not. Design: Prospective cohort study. Methods: EUS was first attempted in 50 patients using the conventional water-filling method; in cases where satisfactory images were not obtained, EUS was additionally performed using oral rehydration jelly (OS-1). Five endoscopists evaluated the obtained images, and their outcomes were examined. Results: Satisfactory images were not obtained in 34 cases when using the water-filling method. The images obtained using the jelly method were improved compared to the water-filling method in 29 cases, with a significant improvement in 18 cases. No complications were observed with the jelly method. Conclusion: For EUS, the jelly method will likely yield good images when satisfactory image quality cannot be obtained using the water-filling method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.