Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35288895›Full record

ReviewLa Tunisie medicale

Clinical practice standards for colonoscopy.

Aya Hammami, Hanen Elloumi, Riadh Bouali, Hela Elloumi

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in La Tunisie medicale. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06666556 (Bowel Preparation in Colonoscopy), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT06666556 phase4completednot on this map

Bowel Preparation in Colonoscopy: Lactulose vs Polyethyleneglycol, Randomized Double-blind Comparative Clinical Trial, Multicenter Study.

TypeinterventionalSponsorHospital Civil de GuadalajaraRan2024 to 2025Enrolled449ConditionsColorectal Cancer ScreeningArmsBowel preparation before colonoscopy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Efficacy of water infusion combined with defoamers in colonoscopy.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025
    Article
  2. History of colonoscopy and technological advances: a narrative review.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2023
    Review
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.

Aya Hammami
Hanen Elloumi
Riadh Bouali
Hela Elloumi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colonoscopy is considered as the most effective tool for preventing, screening, and diagnosing colorectal lesions. Effectiveness of colonoscopy was identified as a major priority, and it strictly depends on quality measures. Therefore, international guidelines were formulated on quality indicators for colonoscopy, aiming to reduce the rate of interval cancers related to missed lesions during colonoscopy. Quality indicators are divided into 3 time periods: preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure.  The main pre-procedural indicators are the assessment of the appropriateness of indication of colonoscopy and the prescription of adequate bowel preparation during a consultation prior to colonoscopy. Per-procedural criteria include all technical aspects of the procedure, which are "endoscopist-dependent" factors, particularly cecal intubation, detection of adenomas and withdrawal time. The main post-procedure indicators are the rate of complications, patient experience and optimal surveillance intervals following removal of colorectal polyps. The implementation of key performance measures in endoscopy practice is increasingly important as it can help improving our care of patients and optimize outcomes. In this review, the "Club d'endoscopie digestive" (CED) presented a summary of the main colonoscopy quality indicators, and suggested recommendations that took into account the particularities of our local conditions.

Indexed as

AdenomaCecumColonoscopyHumansMass Screening

Identifiers

PMID35288895
PMCPMC8972176

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.