ArticleBMC gastroenterology2024
Terminal ileal intubation is not necessary in routine colonoscopy: data from a large-scale retrospective study.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2024. 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.
- Terminal ileum in screening colonoscopy: routine practice or risk-stratified approach?Clinical endoscopy · 2025Article
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
backgroundTerminal ileal intubation (TII) demonstrates a complete colonoscopy, but whether it should be performed in routine colonoscopies remains uncertain. We aimed to explore the diagnostic yield of TII in routine colonoscopy and investigate the association of TII and the detection of lesion.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study included patients who underwent colonoscopy with cecal intubation at our endoscopic center between November 1 2022 and July 31 2023. Macroscopic and histologic findings of terminal ileum were recorded. We used propensity score matching to adjust for differences between groups and further analyzed the difference of polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSDR) and lesion detection rate of right-sided colon, cecum and ascending colon between patients underwent TII or not.
resultsThere were 13,372 patients with cecal intubation colonoscopy, including 7599 (56.8%) with TII and 5773 (43.2%) without TII. Abnormal endoscopic findings were observed in 150 of 7599 unselected individuals and only 7 of these cases were regarded as pathologically significant. Likewise, abnormal endoscopic findings were found in 62 of 3502 asymptomatic individuals with 54 nonspecific ileitis determined by histopathology. After PSM, there were no significant differences in PDR (52.0% vs. 52.3%, P = 0.761), ADR (30.9% vs. 32.2%, P = 0.208), SSDR (1.6% vs. 1.5%, P = 0.541), right-sided lesion detection rate (16.9% vs. 16.8%, P = 0.908), lesion detection rate of cecum (4.9% vs. 4.7%, P = 0.613) and ascending colon (13.5% vs. 13.2%, P = 0.656) between the two groups.
conclusionTII was not necessary in routine colonoscopy, owing to the limited diagnostic value and lack of superiority on lesion detection.
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.