Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23483023›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2013

Ensure preparation and capsule endoscopy: a two-center prospective study.

Eva Niv, Baruch Ovadia, Yulia Ron, Ervin Santo, Elisabeth Mahajna, Zamir Halpern, Zvi Fireman

Abstract readComparative StudyControlled Clinical TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Eva NivDepartment of Gastroenterology, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv 64239, Israel. niv_em@netvision.net.il
Baruch Ovadia
Yulia Ron
Ervin Santo
Elisabeth Mahajna
Zamir Halpern
Zvi Fireman

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo compare small bowel (SB) cleanliness and capsule endoscopy (CE) image quality following Ensure(®), polyethylene glycol (PEG) and standard preparations.

methodsA preparation protocol for CE that is both efficacious and acceptable to patients remains elusive. Considering the physiological function of the SB as a site for the digestion and absorption of food and not as a stool reservoir, preparation consisting of a liquid, fiber-free formula ingested one day before a CE study might have an advantage over other kinds of preparations. We conducted a prospective, blind-to-preparation, two-center study that compared four types of preparations. The participants' demographic and clinical data were collected. Gastric and SB transit times were calculated. The presence of bile in the duodenum was scored by a single, blinded-to-preparation gastroenterologist expert in CE, as was cleanliness within the proximal, middle and distal part of the SB. A four-point scale was used (grade 1 = no bile or residue, grade 4 ≥ 90% of lumen full of bile or residual material).

resultsThe 198 consecutive patients who were referred to CE studies due to routine medical reasons were divided into four groups. They all observed a 12-h overnight fast before undergoing CE. Throughout the 24 h preceding the fast, control group 1 (n = 45 patients) ate light unrestricted meals, control group 2 (n = 81) also ate light meals but free of fruits and vegetables, the PEG group (n = 50) ate unrestricted light meals and ingested the PEG preparation, and the Ensure group (n = 22) ingested only the Ensure formula. Preparation with Ensure improved the visualization of duodenal mucosa (a score of 1.76) by decreasing the bile content compared to preparation with PEG (a score of 2.9) (P = 0.053). Overall, as expected, there was less residue and stool in the proximal part of the SB than in the middle and distal parts in all groups. The total score of cleanliness throughout the length of the SB showed some benefit for Ensure (a score of 1.8) over control group 2 (a score of 2) (P = 0.06). The cleanliness grading of the proximal and distal parts of the SB was similar in all four groups (P = 0.6 for both). The cleanliness in the middle part of the SB in the PEG (a score of 1.8) and Ensure groups (a score of 1.7) was equally better than that of control group 2 (a score of 2.1) (P = 0.057 and P = 0.07, respectively). All 50 PEG patients had diarrhea as an anticipated side effect, compared with only one patient in the Ensure group.

conclusionPreparation with Ensure, a liquid, fiber-free formula has advantages over standard and PEG preparations, with significantly fewer side effects than PEG.

Indexed as

Capsule EndoscopyDietAdministration, OralAdultAnalysis of VarianceChi-Square DistributionDietary SucroseFastingFemaleFood, FormulatedGastrointestinal TransitHumansIntestinal DiseasesIntestinal MucosaIntestine, SmallIsraelDietary SucroseEnsure formulated foodPolyethylene GlycolsCapsule endoscopyEnsureFiber-free dietImage qualityPolyethylene glycolPreparation

Identifiers

PMID23483023
PMCPMC3587483

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.