Study protocol for a prospective, double-blinded, observational study investigating the diagnostic accuracy of an app-based diagnostic health care application in an emergency room setting: the eRadaR trial.

INTRODUCTION: Occurrence of inaccurate or delayed diagnoses is a significant concern in patient care, particularly in emergency medicine, where decision making is often constrained by high throughput and inaccurate admission diagnoses. Artificial intelligence-based diagnostic decision support system have been developed to enhance clinical performance by suggesting differential diagnoses to a given case, based on an integrated medical knowledge base and machine learning techniques. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of Ada, an app-based diagnostic tool and the impact on patient outcome. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The eRadaR trial is a prospective, double-blinded study with patients presenting to the emergency room (ER) with abdominal pain. At initial contact in the ER, a structured interview will be performed using the Ada-App and both, patients and attending physicians, will be blinded to the proposed diagnosis lists until trial completion. Throughout the study, clinical data relating to diagnostic findings and types of therapy will be obtained and the follow-up until day 90 will comprise occurrence of complications and overall survival of patients. The primary efficacy of the trial is defined by the percentage of correct diagnoses suggested by Ada compared with the final discharge diagnosis. Further, accuracy and timing of diagnosis will be compared with decision making of classical doctor-patient interaction. Secondary objectives are complications, length of hospital stay and overall survival. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was received by the independent ethics committee (IEC) of the Goethe-University Frankfurt on 9 April 2020 including the patient information material and informed consent form. All protocol amendments must be reported to and adapted by the IEC. The results from this study will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and reported at suitable national and international meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00019098.

Randomized, double-blind trial of CO2 versus air insufflation in children undergoing colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Studies in adults have shown that postprocedural abdominal pain is reduced with the use of carbon dioxide (CO(2)) instead of air for insufflation during colonoscopy. The aim of our study was to compare postprocedural abdominal pain and girth in children undergoing colonoscopy using CO(2) or air for insufflation. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study that included 76 consecutive pediatric patients undergoing colonoscopy for various indications. Patients were randomly assigned to either CO(2) or air insufflation. At 2, 4, and 24 hours after the examination, the patients' pain was assessed by using the 11-point numerical rating scale. The waist circumference was measured 10 minutes and 2 and 4 hours after colonoscopy. RESULTS: A significantly higher proportion of patients had no pain after colonoscopy in the CO(2) group compared with the air group (82 vs 37% at 2 hours and 95% vs. 63% at 4 hours, P < .001). Mean abdominal pain scores 2 and 4 hours after the procedure were statistically significantly lower in the CO(2) group compared with the control air group (0.5 vs 2.6 at 2 hours and 0.1 vs 1.2 at 4 hours, P < .001). There was no difference in waist circumference between the 2 groups at all time intervals. CONCLUSION: The results of this randomized trial show clear benefits of CO(2) insufflation for colonoscopy in reducing postprocedural discomfort. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02407639.).