ArticleIntestinal research2015
Patient descriptions of rectal effluents may help to predict the quality of bowel preparation with photographic examples.
Article in Intestinal research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of bowel-cleansing efficacy of split-dose and same-day dose bowel preparation for afternoon colonoscopy in patients with gastrectomy: a prospective randomized study.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Trial
- A Prospective Randomized Study to Predict Bowel Preparation Quality Prior to Colonoscopy: Comparison of Two Stool Collection Methods for the Objective Assessment of Final Rectal Effluent Clarity.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a novel scoring system based on a nomogram for predicting inadequate bowel preparation.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024Article
- Article
- Author's Reply.Intestinal research · 2015Article
- Letter: Patient Description of Rectal Effluents With Photographic Examples as a Predictive Indicator for the Quality of Bowel Preparation.Intestinal research · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsPrevious studies have suggested a weak correlation between self-reported rectal effluent status and bowel preparation quality. We aim to evaluate whether photographic examples of rectal effluents could improve the correlation between patient descriptions of rectal effluents and bowel preparation quality.
methodsBefore colonoscopy, patients were asked to describe the nature of their last three rectal effluents. Photographic examples of rectal effluents were provided as a reference for scoring. Bowel preparation was subsequently assessed by a single endoscopist using a global preparation assessment scale. Preparation outcomes were grouped into two levels (excellent to good vs. fair to inadequate). Both univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to find any association between bowel preparation quality and patient characteristics.
resultsA total of 138 patients completed the questionnaires. The mean age was 56.5±10.4 years. The mean sum of the last three rectal effluent scores was 5.9±2.0. Higher rectal effluent scores (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; P=0.043) and the presence of diverticula (OR, 0.16; P<0.001) were risk factors for suboptimal preparation.
conclusionsPhotographic example-guided patient descriptions of rectal effluents showed a statistically significant association with bowel preparation quality. However, clinical significance seemed to be low. The presence of diverticula was an independent predictive factor for suboptimal bowel preparation quality.
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.