ArticleScientific reports2023
Impact of WeChat guidance on bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a quasi-experiment study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Navigating the Journey of Living with Young-Onset Dementia: Experiences of Spousal Caregivers.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colonoscopy is a standard procedure for screening, monitoring, and treating colorectal lesions. To explore the impact of WeChat guidance on bowel preparation before colonoscopy. This quasi-experiment study included patients who underwent colonoscopy at Qingdao Endoscopy Center between March 2016 and September 2016. The primary outcome was bowel preparation quality (Ottawa score), the secondary outcomes were intubation time, withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and adverse reactions. Finally, 588 patients were included and divided into the WeChat guide (n = 295) and the non-WeChat guide (n = 293) groups, they were comparable in baseline characteristics. The Ottawa score (1.59 ± 1.07 vs. 6.62 ± 3.07, P < 0.001), intubation time (6.47 ± 1.81 vs. 11.61 ± 3.34, P < 0.001), withdrawal time (13.15 ± 3.93 vs. 14.99 ± 6.77, P < 0.001), and occurrence rate of adverse reactions (2.0% vs. 5.5%, P = 0.029) were significantly lower in the WeChat guide group than those in the non-WeChat guide group. ADR was significantly higher in the WeChat guide than that in the non-WeChat guide group (1.47 ± 2.30 vs. 0.84 ± 1.66, P < 0.001). WeChat guidance might improve the quality of bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate, shorten the time of colonoscopy, and reduce adverse reactions in bowel preparation.
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.