ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2022
External validation of two prediction models for adequate bowel preparation in Asia: a prospective study.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04607161 (External Validation of Two Prediction Models for Adequate Bowel Preparation in Asia), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
External Validation of Two Prediction Models for Adequate Bowel Preparation in Asia: A Prospective Study
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Risk prediction models for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2026Pooled it
- Development and validation of multivariable prognostic machine learning models to identify patients at risk for inadequate bowel preparation when undergoing colonoscopy: a prospective, multicentre study.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2026Article
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
backgroundSeveral models for predicting adequate bowel preparation are available but have never been externally validated. The aim of this study is to compare the available models in an independent population.
methodsThis study prospectively recruited 500 consecutive patients from August to December 2020 from the Endoscopy Center of a tertiary hospital. All patients underwent the same bowel preparation regimen. The discrimination of the prediction models was quantified with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and the 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each AUC.
resultsFinally, 461 patients were eligible for this study. A total of 110 (23.9%) patients were deemed to show inadequate bowel preparation during colonoscopy. There were significant differences between patients with and without adequate bowel preparation in terms of current hospitalization, procedure time, comorbidities (including diabetes and constipation), American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System score (ASA) ≥ 3, medication usage, and abdominal/pelvic surgery. The prediction models performed as follows: the Dik ≥ 2 model, the Dik ≥ 3 model, and the Antonio > 1.225 model had AUCs of 0.660 (95% CI = 0.604-0.717), 0.691 (95% CI = 0.646-0.733), and 0.645 (95% CI = 0.615-0.704), respectively. Comparison of the two prediction models showed no significant improvement (Antonio > 1.225 vs. Dik ≥ 3, 1.801, 95% CI = -0.004-0.096, P = 0.072).
conclusionsBoth models are potentially helpful. However, it is necessary to develop or improve a prediction model to obtain a more suitable and detailed model.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, Number NCT04607161.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35467123What 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.