The influence of esophagogastroduodenoscopy using carbon dioxide insufflation on abdominal ultrasonographic imaging efficiency

Image Quality of Abdominal Ultrasonography After Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Is Preserved by Using Carbon Dioxide Insufflation

“…Two trials associated with this hypothesis have been reported. As only a limited number of organs were available for observation by AUS and the statistical analysis was inadequate in these trials, the results of data analyses are insu cient to prove our hypothesis, and they showed partially negative results 3 or results that partially exceeded this hypothesis 4 . To prove this hypothesis, we designed a non-inferiority test 5 that compared image quality of AUS performed following EGD with CO 2 insu ation (post-EGD AUS) with that of AUS prior to EGD (pre-EGD AUS) in the same subject.…”

“…However, the mean image quality was reduced for all organs. Nakagawara et al 4 reported that using CO 2 insu ation instead of air improved the image quality of AUS at 60 min after EGD in some patients. They used a three-point Likert scale of better, unchanged, and worse for evaluation of image quality of AUS after EGD, compared with that of AUS images before EGD as control.…”

“…A method for objectively estimating the quality of AUS images has not been established. Previous studies 3,4,16,17,19 have used three-to ve-point Likert scales such as 1 -not interpretable, 2 -barely interpretable, 3 -adequate for interpretation but of poor quality, 4 -interpretable and of average quality, 5interpretable and of superior quality. In this study, we developed a more objective scale by replacing the abstract evaluation with the depiction rate as an interval scale suitable for statistical analysis 20 .…”

Image Quality of Abdominal Ultrasonography After Esophagogastroduodenoscopy is Preserved by Using Carbon Dioxide Insufflation

“…Two trials associated with this hypothesis have been reported. As only a limited number of organs, such as the pancreas alone 3 or the pancreas, extrahepatic bile duct, and inferior pole of the right kidney 4 , were available for observation by AUS, and the statistical analysis was inadequate in these trials in which no statistical analysis was done 3 or a signi cant difference test was done instead of a non-inferiority test 4 , the results of the data analyses are insu cient to test our hypothesis. In addition, they reported partially negative results 3 showing that, in about 27% of patients, the image quality of AUS was worse 3 .…”

“…In addition, they reported partially negative results 3 showing that, in about 27% of patients, the image quality of AUS was worse 3 . However, they also reported results based on which they concluded that the image quality of AUS was improved in some patients 4 .To prove this hypothesis, we designed a non-inferiority test 5 that compared image quality of AUS performed following EGD with CO 2 insu ation (post-EGD AUS) with that of AUS prior to EGD (pre-EGD AUS) in the same subject.…”