Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29302875›Full record

Trial reportDigestive diseases and sciences2018

Sham Feeding with Bacon Does Not Alter Transit Time or Complete Examination Rate During Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy.

David Prichard, George Ou, Cherry Galorport, Robert Enns

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03482661 (Magnetic Steering of Capsule Endoscopy Improves Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy Completion Rate), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03482661 nacompletednot on this map

Magnetic Steering of Capsule Endoscopy Improves Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy Completion Rate

TypeinterventionalSponsorZhuan LiaoRan2017 to 2017Enrolled227ConditionsCapsule Endoscopy, Small Bowel DiseaseArmsmagnetic steering
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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.

David PrichardMayo Clinic Health System Franciscan Healthcare in La Crosse, 700 West Avenue South, La Crosse, WI, 54601, USA. prichard.david@mayo.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6861-2693
George OuSt Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Cherry GalorportSt Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Robert EnnsSt Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring capsule endoscopy (CE) studies, the complete examination rate (CER) can be increased by prolonging capsule battery life or reducing gastric transit time (GTT) and/or small bowel transit time (SBTT). However, despite enhanced battery life, 10% of studies remain incomplete. Previously studied interventions to reduce SBTT and enhance CER have produced conflicting results. We hypothesize that this may be a consequence of an insufficiently potent stimulus of small bowel motility.

aimsTo examine whether potent stimulation of the cephalic response of digestion during small bowel CE reduces GTT and/or SBTT and thus increases the CER.

methodsA single-blind randomized trial was performed to evaluate the effect of bacon sham feeding on GTT, SBTT and CER.

resultsBaseline characteristics were similar between 63 sham fed patients and 59 controls. The median GTT was 17 min (9-65) in the bacon group and 25 min (14-55) in the control group. The median SBTT was 199 min (119-316) and 222 min (151-287), respectively. Cox proportional hazards model demonstrated no significant difference between groups for GTT (rate ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.71-1.51, P = 0.87) or SBTT (rate ratio 1.02, 95% CI 0.70-1.49, P = 0.93). Although the taste of bacon was considered favorably by 72% of participants, taste did not correlate with GTT (ρ = 0.03, P = 0.83) or SBTT (ρ = - 0.115, P = 0.33). The CER was 91 and 95% in the bacon and control groups, respectively (P = 0.35).

conclusionBacon sham feeding has no effect on GTT, SBTT or CER and cannot be recommended in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal TransitMeat ProductsAnimalsCapsule EndoscopyDigestionFemaleGastrointestinal MotilityHumansIntestine, SmallMaleStomachSwineCapsule endoscopyCephalic phase of digestionComplete examination rateGastric transit timeSham feedingSmall bowel transit time

Identifiers

PMID29302875

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.