SynthesisScientific reports2023
Effectiveness of bowel preparation innovative technology instructions (BPITIs) on clinical outcomes among patients undergoing colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward bowel preparation for sedation-assisted colonoscopy among patients with digestive disorders: a structural equation modeling analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes of bowel preparation education strategies in colonoscopy: An evidence map of systematic reviews.Medicine · 2025Article
- Bowel preparation assessment using artificial intelligence: Systematic review.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Online patient endoscopy education platform improves outpatient bowel preparation quality: Retrospective observational study.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Promoting Research that Supports High-Quality Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Children.Current gastroenterology reports · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the effectiveness of bowel preparation innovative technology instructions (BPITIs) among patients undergoing colonoscopy. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs from inception to February 28, 2022. The Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool and GRADE were used to assess RoB and certainty of evidence, respectively. Meta-analyses with random-effects model were used for analysis. This review included 47 RCTs (84 records). Seven BPITIs were found among included studies: (1) mobile apps, (2) VDO stream from personal devices, (3) VDO stream from a hospital device, (4) SMS re-education, (5) telephone re-education, (6) computer-based education, and (7) web-based education. The findings demonstrate that BPITIs have a slight impact on adherence to overall instructions (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.13-1.28; moderate-certainty evidence), adequate bowel preparation (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.07-1.13; low-certainty evidence), and quality of bowel preparation score (SMD 0.42, 95% CI 0.33-0.52; low-certainty evidence) compared to routine care. BPITIs may enhance the clinical outcomes. Due to the low-certainty evidence and heterogeneity of the included studies, the findings should be interpreted cautiously. Well-designed and reported RCTs are required to confirm the findings.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021217846.
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.