Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23652813›Full record

SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2013

Water infusion versus air insufflation for colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

D Hu, Y Xu, Y Sun, Q Zhu

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04987645 (Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Impact of Water Assisted Colonoscopy vs Air Insufflation on Resident Training), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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.

NCT04987645 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Impact of Water Assisted Colonoscopy vs Air Insufflation on Resident Training

TypeinterventionalSponsorMemorial University of NewfoundlandRan2022 to 2024Enrolled140ConditionsWater Assisted ColonoscopyArmsWater-only infusion technique, Water infusion and air insufflation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Water infusion versus air insufflation for colonoscopy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  2. Is water exchange superior to water immersion for colonoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

D HuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200025, People's Republic of China.
Y Xu
Y Sun
Q Zhu
Ruijin Hospital · CNShanghai Jiao Tong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this meta-analysis was to determine whether water infusion colonoscopy (WIC) is a more effective diagnostic tool than standard air insufflation colonoscopy (AIC).

methodsAll articles pertinent to a comparison of water-related methods and air insufflation to facilitate insertion of the colonoscope were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Pooling results were derived by using the Review Manager Software. Outcomes were assessed using the weighted mean difference (MD) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for continuous variables and the odds ratios (OR) with 95 % CI for dichotomous variables.

resultsEighteen studies involving 2,797 patients were included. WIC was associated with a significantly higher cecal intubation rate than AIC (OR = 1.90; 95 % CI 1.21-2.99; p = 0.005). The intubation time was similar for the two types of colonoscopy, but in WIC there was a significantly lower visual analog scale score for abdominal pain than in AIC (MD = -1.30; 95 % CI -2.03 to -0.58; p < 0.001) without sacrificing the polyp detection rate (OR = 1.17; 95 % CI 0.78-1.77; p = 0.44). Statistically, the patient's willingness to repeat colonoscopy was significantly greater for WIC than for AIC (OR = 1.74; 95 % CI 1.14-2.67; p < 0.01). Furthermore, in the subgroup for trainees, the WIC group achieved a higher cecal intubation rate (OR = 1.83; 95 % CI 1.15-2.93; p = 0.01) and a shorter intubation time (MD = -1.72 min; 95 % CI -3.34 to -0.11; p = 0.04) than the AIC group.

conclusionsIn contrast to AIC, WIC improved cecal intubation, alleviated abdominal pain, and increased patients' willingness to repeat the procedure.

Indexed as

Pain MeasurementWaterColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsConfidence IntervalsFemaleHumansInsufflationMaleOdds RatioPatient PreferencePatient SatisfactionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk AssessmentWater

Identifiers

PMID23652813
OpenAlexW1970224718

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.