Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23143737›Full record

Trial reportDigestive diseases and sciences2013

Prone positioning of obese patients for colonoscopy results in shortened cecal intubation times: a randomized trial.

Fatema S Uddin, Ramiz Iqbal, William V Harford, Kerry B Dunbar, Byron L Cryer, Stuart J Spechler, Linda A Feagins

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03337217 (Colonoscopy in the Prone Position for Patients With BMI Greater Than 30 Is Superior to Standard Left Lateral Decubitus Position), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03337217 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Colonoscopy in the Prone Position for Patients With BMI Greater Than 30 Is Superior to Standard Left Lateral Decubitus Position

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of VirginiaRan2017 to 2019Enrolled141ConditionsObesityArmsPosition during colonoscopy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Use of an Abdominal Compression Device in Colonoscopy: A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2016
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Patient Position in Operative Endoscopy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Colonoscopy procedural skills and training for new beginners.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014
    Review
  15. Colonoscopy in obese patients: time to change position.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2013
    Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Fatema S UddinDivision of Gastroenterology (111B1), Dallas VA Medical Center, 4500 S. Lancaster Road, Dallas, TX 75216, USA.
Ramiz Iqbal
William V Harford
Kerry B Dunbar
Byron L Cryer
Stuart J Spechler
Linda A Feagins

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundObesity is a risk factor for colorectal cancer, and colonoscopy can be technically challenging in obese patients. It has been proposed (with little supporting data) that prone positioning of obese patients might facilitate a difficult colonoscopy.

aimThe aim of this study was to determine if starting colonoscopy in the prone position for obese patients decreases cecal intubation times.

methodsThis was a prospective, randomized study conducted at the North Texas VA Medical Center. Patients with a body mass index of ≥30 kg/m(2) undergoing elective colonoscopy were randomized 1:1 to either initial prone positioning or standard, left-lateral positioning. The outcome measurements were cecal intubation time, frequency of repositioning, sedative medications used, reports of pain, complications, and procedure tolerability.

resultsFifty patients were randomized to have colonoscopy starting in the standard, left-lateral decubitus position, and 51 to the prone position. The average cecal intubation time for the standard group was 550 vs. 424 s in the prone group (p = 0.03). Patient repositioning was used in 28 % of patients in the standard group versus 8 % in the prone group (p = 0.009). There was no difference in subjective reports of pain between groups (p = 0.95) or in average pain scores (p = 0.79). Follow-up interviews were conducted in 93 % of patients, all of whom said that they would be willing to have repeat colonoscopy in the same position.

conclusionsPerformance of colonoscopy in the prone position for obese patients results in significantly shorter cecal intubation times and decreased need for patient repositioning. Prone positioning is well accepted and does not significantly increase procedure-related discomfort.

Indexed as

Prone PositionCecumColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsHumansMaleMiddle AgedObesityRisk FactorsTime Factors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.