Trial reportInternational journal of colorectal disease2016
A randomized controlled trial comparing water exchange and air insufflation during colonoscopy without sedation.
Trial report in International journal of colorectal disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Adenoma and Advanced Adenoma Detection Rates of Water Exchange, Endocuff, and Cap Colonoscopy: A Network Meta-Analysis with Pooled Data of Randomized Controlled Trials.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2021Pooled it
- Diagnostic application of water exchange colonoscopy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.The Journal of international medical research · 2019Pooled it
- Is water exchange superior to water immersion in detecting adenomas during colonoscopies? Results from a Bayesian network meta-analysis.Oncotarget · 2018Article
- Water-Assisted Colonoscopy.Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPrevious studies have shown that water exchange is superior to air insufflation in attenuating insertion pain during colonoscopy. We conducted a randomized controlled trial with head-to-head comparison of these methods to assess their effectiveness in colonoscopy without sedation.
methodsA total of 447 outpatients were randomized to either water exchange (WE) or the standard air (CO2) insufflation (AI). The primary outcome was the improvement of patient intraprocedural pain (pain score), evaluated using a questionnaire (scores 1 to 5).
resultsAfter exclusion of 44 patients from further analysis, 403 patients were analyzed. There was no difference in clinical background between the WE and AI groups. Patients in the WE group reported less intraprocedural pain than those in the AI group (2.17 ± 1.06 vs. 2.42 ± 1.03; unpaired t test, p = 0.021). We divided the cases into two groups, more or less painful colonoscopy, based on age, body mass index, use of anti-peristaltic drugs or not, and physician's experience. In less painful colonoscopy, the WE method could reduce pain effectively but its effect was limited in the more painful group.
conclusionWE is superior to AI for attenuating insertion pain during colonoscopy without sedation, but its efficacy is limited in more painful endoscopy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27059039What 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.