ArticleBMJ open gastroenterology2019
Evaluation of the combined effect of factors influencing bowel preparation and adenoma detection rates in patients undergoing colonoscopy.
Article in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- The Association of FIT-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening with Earlier Disease Detection: The Romanian Experience.Cancers · 2026Article
- EndoClean: A Hybrid Deep Learning Framework for Automated Full-Video Boston Bowel Preparation Scale Assessment.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Could artificial intelligence-powered colonoscopies change the future of colorectal cancer screening?World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Can Artificial Intelligence Create an Accurate Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation Prompt?Gastro hep advances · 2025Article
- Effect of acuity level and patient characteristics on bowel preparation quality: a retrospective cohort study of inpatient colonoscopies.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Bowel cleansing efficacy for colonoscopy: prospective, randomized comparative study of same-day dosing with 1-L and 2-L PEG + ascorbate.Endoscopy international open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColonoscopy is a commonly used modality for screening and surveillance of colorectal cancer (CRC). Therefore, it is essential to have adequate bowel preparation (prep) for the procedure which depends on type of bowel regimens, diet before colonoscopy and timing of the procedure.
aimsThe purpose of this study is to analyse the effect of multiple factors on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and prep quality of colonoscopy. This is the also the first study determining outcomes based on various combinations of diet, timing of the procedure and bowel prep regimens.
methodsThis is a retrospective single-centre observational study. Data about diet before procedure, bowel prepprep regimen and timing of the procedure was collected for patients coming for screening colonoscopy.
resultsPatients with split prep had higher good prep rates (73.8% vs 56.2%) and higher ADRs (34.2 % vs 29.9%) as compared with non-split prep. The good prep quality (65.8% vs 62.1%) and ADRs (31.9% vs 31.5%) were comparable in patients who received clear liquid diet as compared with low residue diet. The good results of bowel prep were obtained with split prep with either clear liquids or low residue diet irrespective of the timing of procedure. The poor prep was noticed in patients who underwent procedure in afternoon, with a low restrictive diet and non-split bowel regimen.
conclusionsThe current study adds to our knowledge about the combined effect of multiple variables affecting the bowel prep quality and ADR. It is imperative to opt for the best combination required for colonoscopy, as this will influence the effectiveness of colonoscopies regarding timely cancer detection and prevention.
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.