ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus-A Gap We Have to Bridge: A Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors Associated with Clinically Inadequate Bowel Preparation Among Patients with Diabetes Mellitus Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Single-Center Observational Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists is associated with inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy in patients with diabetes.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2026Article
- Development of an interpretable machine learning model and web application for peri-colonoscopy hypoglycemia risk in hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colonoscopy is an essential diagnostic and therapeutic tool in gastroenterology, significantly impacting colorectal cancer (CRC) detection and management. Effective bowel preparation is critical for optimal visualization, directly influencing colonoscopy accuracy and patient outcomes. However, diabetic patients frequently encounter challenges achieving adequate bowel preparation, primarily due to gastroparesis, autonomic neuropathy, altered colonic motility, fluid-electrolyte imbalances, and complexities related to antihyperglycemic medication adjustments. This review aims to evaluate the current literature on bowel preparation efficacy in diabetic patients undergoing colonoscopy, assess existing guidelines from leading gastroenterological societies, and highlight the necessity for detailed, diabetes-specific recommendations. We conducted a comprehensive PubMed search identifying 20 pertinent studies, including randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, multicenter studies, cohort studies, and reviews. The findings consistently indicate diabetes as an independent predictor of inadequate bowel preparation. Furthermore, an evaluation of guidelines from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), the US Multi-Society Task Force, and the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology revealed either absent or insufficiently detailed diabetes-specific recommendations. Given the rising global prevalence of diabetes and CRC, inadequate bowel preparation significantly impacts the quality of colonoscopy, adenoma detection rates, patient safety, and healthcare costs. This review underscores the urgent need for additional research focusing on tailored bowel preparation strategies for diabetic patients. Ultimately, the implementation of standardized, evidence-based protocols designed explicitly for this high-risk group is essential to enhance diagnostic efficacy, improve patient outcomes, and reduce CRC-related morbidity and mortality.
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.