Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34705136›Full record

Trial reportTechniques in coloproctology2022

Comparing right colon adenoma detection rate during water exchange and air insufflation: a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

C- W Tseng, Y- H Hsieh, M Koo, F W Leung

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Techniques in coloproctology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Water Exchange Improves Detection of Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia: Pooled Analysis of Four Randomized Trials.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

C- W TsengDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, 2 Minsheng Road, Dalin, Chiayi, 62247, Taiwan.
Y- H HsiehDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, 2 Minsheng Road, Dalin, Chiayi, 62247, Taiwan. hsieh.yuhsi@msa.hinet.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4196-8678
M KooGraduate Institute of Long-Term Care, Tzu Chi University of Science and Technology, Hualien, Taiwan.
F W LeungSepulveda Ambulatory Care Center, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, North Hill, CA, USA.
Tzu Chi University · TWUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation DTCRD103-E-13
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported that water exchange (WE) produced the highest adenoma detection rate (ADR) but did not evaluate right colon adenoma detection rate (rADR) as a primary outcome and only one of the trials employed blinded colonoscopists. The aim of our study was to determine whether, compared with air insufflation, WE significantly increases rADR and right colon serrated lesion detection rate (rSLDR) and decreases adenoma miss rate (rAMR).

methodsThis prospective, double-blind RCT was conducted at a regional hospital in Taiwan between December 2015 and February 2020. Standard WE and air insufflation were performed. After cecal intubation, the second blinded endoscopist examined the right colon and obtained rADR (primary outcome) and rSLDR. Then, the primary colonoscopist reinserted the scope to the cecum with WE in both groups and performed a tandem examination of the right colon to obtain rAMR.

resultsThere were 284 patients (50.9% male, mean age 58.9 ± 9.4 years) who were randomized to WE (n = 144) or air insufflation (n = 140). The baseline characteristics were similar. The rADR (34.7% vs. 22.3%, p = 0.025), Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores (mean, 2.6 ± 0.6vs. 2.2 ± 0.6, p < 0.001), rSLDR (18.1% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.007), and rAMR (31.5% vs. 45.2%, p = 0.038) were significantly different between WE and air insufflation.

conclusionsThe current study demonstrated a significantly higher rADR and rSLDR with the WE method performed by blinded colonoscopists. The impact of the significant findings in this report on the occurrence of interval cancers deserves to be studied.

Indexed as

AdenomaInsufflationAgedAirColonColonoscopyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedWaterWaterAdenoma detection rateAdenoma miss rateAir insufflationColonoscopyWater exchange

Identifiers

PMID34705136
OpenAlexW3209083775

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.