ArticleMedicine2025
Clinical outcomes of bowel preparation education strategies in colonoscopy: An evidence map of systematic reviews.
Article in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBowel preparation before colonoscopy is a research focus and challenge in gastroenterology. Inadequate bowel preparation increases the risk of adenoma miss rate, healthcare costs, and morbidity and mortality from colorectal cancer. While health education shows promise in improving preparation quality, existing studies are limited by fragmented evidence, variable methodological quality, and insufficient strategy comparisons, constraining clinical efficacy. This study innovatively employs an evidence map to clarify the current distribution of evidence, core strategies, and practical gaps, providing a reference for optimizing clinical decision-making.
methodsFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, we searched 8 significant databases (CNKI/Wan Fang/VIP/SinoMed/Web of Science/PubMed/CINAHL/Cochrane Library) built up to October 30, 2024, for inclusion of bowel preparation-related systematic evaluations/meta-analyses. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR-2 and AMSTAR, and multidimensional data visualization was achieved by generating bubble plots via Pymeta.com.
resultsWe identified 20 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, clarified 6 core strategies: smartphone application, telephone, short message service, visual aids, newly designed brochure, and multi-method combination. Quality assessment revealed that only 10% of studies achieved moderate methodological quality; the remaining studies were of low or critically low quality. Overall, 6 strategies can effectively improve bowel preparation adequacy with smartphone applications and multi-method combination demonstrating superior efficacy. Among outcome measures, bowel preparation quality, adenoma/polyp detection rate ranked among the top three. Notably, patient-reported outcomes (compliance, satisfaction) improved more than clinician-reported outcomes, attributable to 4 explanatory factors.
conclusionA multi-method combination has significant practical potential. This study proposes personalized combination strategies based on the characteristics of different populations, and their effectiveness needs to be further verified by more high-quality research in the future. Additionally, this study pioneers the visualization of the evidence landscape through an evidence map, establishing a direct mapping between educational strategies and outcome measures to provide a framework for optimizing clinical decision-making. These findings call for high-quality research to compare the efficacy and generalizability of strategy combinations, while exploring tailored approaches for diverse populations to advance clinical application of personalized, precision-based bowel preparation education programs.
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.