Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26011829›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015

Water infusion versus air insufflation for colonoscopy.

Susanne Hafner, Karsten Zolk, Franco Radaelli, Jörg Otte, Thomas Rabenstein, Oliver Zolk

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Screening colonoscopy: The present and the future.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. My approach to water-assisted colonoscopy.Frontline gastroenterology · 2019
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Recent advances in colonoscopy.F1000Research · 2019
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Susanne HafnerInstitute of Pharmacology of Natural Products & Clinical Pharmacology, University Hospital Ulm, Helmholtzstrasse 20, Ulm, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, 89081.
Karsten Zolk
Franco Radaelli
Jörg Otte
Thomas Rabenstein
Oliver Zolk
Diakonissenkrankenhaus · DEFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DEHelmholtz-Institute Ulm · DEOspedale Valduce · ITUniversity Hospital Ulm · DEWestpfalz Klinikum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColonoscopy is a widely used diagnostic and therapeutic modality. A large proportion of the population is likely to undergo colonoscopy for diagnosis and treatment of colorectal diseases, or when participating in colorectal cancer screening programs. To reduce pain, water infusion instead of traditional air insufflation during the insertion phase of the colonoscopy has been proposed, thereby improving patients' acceptance of the procedure. Moreover, the water infusion method may improve early detection of precancerous neoplasms.

objectivesTo compare water infusion techniques with standard air insufflation, specifically evaluating technical quality and screening efficacy, as well as patients' acceptance of the water infusion procedure. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group Specialized Register (February 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to February 2014), Ovid EMBASE (1974 to February 2014), and ClinicalTrials.gov (1999 to February 2014) for eligible randomised controlled trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing water infusion (water exchange or water immersion methods) against standard air insufflation during the insertion phase of the colonoscopy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion and extracted data from eligible studies. We performed analysis using Review Manager software (RevMan 5). MAIN

resultsWe included 16 randomised controlled trials consisting of 2933 colonoscopies. Primary outcome measures were cecal intubation rate and adenoma detection; secondary outcomes were time needed to reach the cecum, pain experienced by participants during the procedure, completion of cecal intubation without sedation/analgesia, and adverse events. Completeness of colonoscopy, that is cecal intubation rate, was similar between water infusion and standard air insufflation (risk ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.03, P = 0.93). Adenoma detection rate, that is number of participants with at least one detected adenoma, was slightly improved with water infusion (risk ratio 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.30, P = 0.007). Assuming the fraction of patients undergoing screening colonoscopy who had one or more adenomas detected was 20 per 100 with standard colonoscopy, the use of water colonoscopy may increase the fraction to 23 per 100 individuals. From our findings, it is possible that up to 68,000 more of the 1.7 million outpatient screening colonoscopies performed annually in the United States, could detect adenomas if water infusion colonoscopy was used. In addition, with water infusion participants experienced significantly less pain (mean difference in pain score on a 0 to 10 scale: -1.57, 95% CI -2.00 to -1.14, P < 0.00001) and a significantly lower proportion of participants requested on-demand sedation or analgesia, or both (risk ratio 1.20, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.27, P < 0.00001). Qualitative analysis suggests that water infusion colonoscopy was not associated with a markedly increased rate of adverse events compared with the standard procedure. AUTHORS'

conclusionsCompleteness of colonoscopy, that is cecal intubation rate, was not improved by water infusion compared with standard air insufflation colonoscopy. However, adenoma detection, assessed with two different measures (that is adenoma detection rate and number of detected adenomas per procedure), was slightly augmented by the water infusion colonoscopy. Improved adenoma detection might be due to the cleansing effects of water infusions on the mucosa. Detection of premalignant lesions during standard colonoscopy is suboptimal, and so improvements in adenoma detection by water infusion colonoscopy, although small, may help to reduce the risk of interval colorectal carcinoma. The most obvious benefit of water infusion colonoscopy was reduction of procedure-related abdominal pain, which may enhance the acceptance of screening/surveillance colonoscopy.

Indexed as

WaterAbdominal PainAdenomaColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsHumansInsufflationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicWater

Identifiers

PMID26011829
PMCPMC11257032
OpenAlexW1547951601

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.