SynthesisPloS one2020
Reinforced education improves the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Telephone instructions improve the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Can adjuncts to bowel preparation for colonoscopy improve patient experience and result in superior bowel cleanliness? A systematic review and meta-analysis.United European gastroenterology journal · 2020Pooled it
- Evaluation of the effect of reinforced education on the satisfaction of patients undergoing colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial.PloS one · 2024Trial
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of nurses regarding bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a structural equation modeling analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes of bowel preparation education strategies in colonoscopy: An evidence map of systematic reviews.Medicine · 2025Article
- A Systematic Review on the Effective Teaching Strategies and Methods for Cancer Patient Education.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025Review
- Enhancing Patient Education for Colonoscopy Preparation: Strategies, Tools, and Best Practices.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The Effectiveness of Additional Information Provided Before Colonoscopy Regarding Bowel Preparation.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Colon Bowel Preparation in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: Is There Potential for Enhancing Colon Bowel Cleansing?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- The Colonoscopy Cookbook: Analysis of effect of a recipe resource on quality and experience of bowel preparation in colonoscopy.Endoscopy international open · 2023Article
- Measuring and Improving Quality of Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening.Techniques and innovations in gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Article
- Effect of nurse-performed enhanced patient education on colonoscopy bowel preparation quality.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2022Article
- Novel frontiers of agents for bowel cleansing for colonoscopy.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Efficacy and Patient Tolerability Profiles of Probiotic Solution with Bisacodyl Versus Conventional Cleansing Solution for Bowel Preparation: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Review
- Toward high-quality bowel preparation in Italy: insights from a nationwide cross-sectional survey of endoscopists.Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsInadequate bowel preparation (BP) is an unfavorable factor that influence the success of colonoscopy. Although standard education (SE) given to patients are proved useful to avoid inadequate BP. Studies concerning the effects of reinforced education (RE) on the quality of BP were inconsistent. The aim of this updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial was to compare the quality of BP between patients receiving RE in addition to SE and those receiving SE alone.
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were systemically searched to identify the relevant studies published through April 2019. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate BP. Subgroup analyses were conducted. Secondary outcomes included BP score, adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR), insertion time, withdrawal time, adverse events, >80% purgative intake and diet compliance. Dichotomous variables were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were reported as mean difference (MD) with 95%CI. Pooled estimates of OR or MD were calculated using a random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity was accessed by calculating the I2 value. A P value less than 0.05 was considered significant.
resultsA total of 18 randomized controlled trails (N = 6536) were included in this meta-analysis. Patients who received RE had a better BP quality than those only receiving SE (OR 2.59, 95%CI: 2.09-3.19; P<0.001). A higher ADR (OR 1.35; 95%CI: 1.06-1.72; P = 0.020) and PDR (OR 1.24, 95%CI: 1.02-1.50; P = 0.030), shorter insertion (MD -0.76; 95%CI: -1.48-(-0.04); P = 0.040) and withdrawal time (MD -0.83; 95%CI: -1.83-(-0.28); P = 0.003), less nausea/vomiting (OR 0.78; 95%CI: 0.64-0.97; P = 0.020) and abdominal distension (OR 0.72; 95%CI: 0.68-0.92; P = 0.020) were achieved in the RE group. More patients had >80% purgative intake (OR 2.17; 95%CI, 1.09-4.32; P = 0.030) and were compliant with diet restriction (OR 2.38; 95%CI: 1.79-3.17; P<0.001) in the RE group.
conclusionRE significantly improved BP quality, increased ADR and PDR, decreased insertion and withdrawal time and adverse events.
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.