ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2014
Hyoscine for polyp detection during colonoscopy: A meta-analysis and systematic review.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perianal lidocaine application during unsedated colonoscopy: A double-blind randomized controlled trial.PloS one · 2026Trial
- Combining techniques and technologies increases adenoma detection rates in colonoscopy: More is more.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Review
- Peppermint Oil to Improve Visualization in Screening Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.Gastroenterology research · 2019Article
- Standards of diagnostic colonoscopy for early-stage neoplasia: Recommendations by an Asian private group.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2019Article
- Does Hyoscine improve polyp detection rate during colonoscopy? Systematic Review & meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2018Review
- Topical lidocaine inhibits spasm during colonoscopy: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial (with video).Endoscopy international open · 2017Article
- Strategies to Increase Adenoma Detection Rates.Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2017Review
- Antispasmodic drugs in colonoscopy: a review of their pharmacology, safety and efficacy in improving polyp detection and related outcomes.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2017Review
- What Can We Do to Optimize Colonoscopy and How Effective Can We Be?Current gastroenterology reports · 2016Review
- Seeing better--Evidence based recommendations on optimizing colonoscopy adenoma detection rate.World journal of gastroenterology · 2016Review
- New technologies and techniques to improve adenoma detection in colonoscopy.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo assess the role of hyoscine for polyp detection during colonoscopy.
methodsStudies (randomized controlled trials or RCTs) that compared the use of hyoscine vs no hyoscine or placebo for polyp detection during colonoscopy were included in our analysis. A search on multiple databases was performed in September 2013 with search terms being "hyoscine and colonoscopy", "hyoscine and polyp", "hyoscine and adenoma", "antispasmotic and colonoscopy", "antispasmotic and adenoma", and "antispasmotic and polyp". Jadad scoring was used to assess the quality of studies. The efficacy of hyoscine was analyzed using Mantel-Haenszel model for polyp and adenoma detection with odds ratio (OR). The I (2) measure of inconsistency was used to assess heterogeneity (P < 0.05 or I (2) > 50%). Statistical analysis was performed by RevMan 5.1. Funnel plots was used to assess publication bias.
resultsThe search of the electronic databases identified 283 articles. Of these articles, eight published RCTs performed at various locations in Europe, Asia, and Australia were included in our meta-analysis, seven published as manuscripts and one published as an abstract (n = 2307). All the studies included patients with a hyoscine and a no hyoscine/placebo group and were of adequate quality (Jadad score ≥ 2). Eight RCTs assessed the polyp detection rate (PDR) (n = 2307). The use of hyoscine demonstrated no statistically significant difference as compared to no hyoscine or placebo for PDR (OR = 1.06; 95%CI: 0.89-1.25; P = 0.51). Five RCTs assessed the adenoma detection rate (ADR) (n = 2015). The use of hyoscine demonstrated no statistically significant difference as compared to no hyoscine or placebo for ADR (OR = 1.12; 95%CI: 0.92-1.37; P = 0.25). Furthermore, the timing of hyoscine administration (given at cecal intubation or pre-procedure) demonstrated no differences in PDR compared to no hyoscine or placebo. Publication bias or heterogeneity was not observed for any of the outcomes.
conclusionHyoscine use in patients undergoing colonoscopy does not appear to significantly increase the detection of polyps or adenomas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.