ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2021
Comparative Effectiveness of Enhanced Patient Instructions for Bowel Preparation Before Colonoscopy: Network Meta-analysis of 23 Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of bowel preparation innovative technology instructions (BPITIs) on clinical outcomes among patients undergoing colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Pooled it
- A randomized control trial to assess the effectiveness of a brief educational intervention on colonoscopy preparation and experience in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Trial
- A prospective, single-blinded, non-inferiority, randomized controlled study comparing the effectiveness and safety of oral lactulose combined with carbohydrate-containing clear liquids versus 3-L polyethylene glycol electrolyte for colonoscopy bowel preparation.European journal of medical research · 2025Trial
- Article
- Clinical outcomes of bowel preparation education strategies in colonoscopy: An evidence map of systematic reviews.Medicine · 2025Article
- A Prospective Randomized Study to Predict Bowel Preparation Quality Prior to Colonoscopy: Comparison of Two Stool Collection Methods for the Objective Assessment of Final Rectal Effluent Clarity.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Online patient endoscopy education platform improves outpatient bowel preparation quality: Retrospective observational study.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- The status quo of short videos as a source of health information regarding bowel preparation before colonoscopy.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Effect of Visual Booklets to Improve Bowel Preparation in Colonoscopy: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
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
backgroundVarious enhanced patient instructions (EPIs) have been used for bowel preparation (BP) and our previous meta-analysis also demonstrated the efficacy of EPIs in increasing the colonic polyp and adenoma detection rates; however, the optimal method for adequate BP has not yet been developed.
objectiveWe performed a network meta-analysis to determine the optimal instructions.
methodsWe searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of EPIs with each other or standard patient instructions (SPIs) for BP. We performed direct and Bayesian network meta-analyses for all instructions and used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria to appraise the quality of evidence.
resultsWe included 23 RCTs (7969 patients) comparing 10 different instructions. In direct meta-analyses, most of the EPIs, except visual aids and mobile apps, increased the adequate preparation rate (APR). Network meta-analyses showed that additional explanations were superior to visual aids (odds ratio [OR] 0.35, 95% CI 0.19-0.59), telephone calls (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.37-0.99), educational videos (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.5-0.77), and mobile apps (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14-0.68) with low-to-high-quality evidence; newly designed booklets (OR 3.28, 95% CI 1.59-6.16), SMS text messaging (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.28-3.91), telephone calls (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.03-1.78), educational videos (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.40-3.65), and social media applications (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.4-3.93) were superior to visual aids and mobile apps with low-to-high-quality evidence. SMS text messaging, telephone calls, and social media applications increase adherence to and satisfaction with the BP regime. Social media applications reduce the risk of adverse events (AEs). Telephone calls and social media applications increase the polyp detection rate (PDR).
conclusionsNewly designed booklets, telephone calls, educational videos, and social media applications can improve the quality of BP. Telephone calls and social media applications improve adherence to and satisfaction with the BP regime, reduce the risk of AEs, and increase the PDR.
trial registrationINPLASY (International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols) INPLASY2020120103; https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2020-12-0103/.
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.