ArticleProceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)
Optimizing colonoscopy with abdominal compression devices: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Abdominal binders improve colonoscopy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with BMI-stratified subgroup analysis.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Squeezing out better outcomes with abdominal compression devices.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Colonoscopy is a vital procedure for colorectal cancer screening and intervention; however, it can be uncomfortable for patients, particularly older people and those with diverticular disease. In our systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the impact of abdominal compression devices (ACDs) on patient comfort and procedural efficiency during colonoscopy. Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and Embase from inception to April 2025. A risk of bias assessment was performed by using the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials, version 2 (ROB2). Data analysis was conducted using R version 4.2.2 and RStudio version 2022.07.2. Results: Our comprehensive search across multiple databases yielded 16 randomized controlled trials involving 3098 participants. Our analysis revealed that ACDs significantly reduced cecal intubation time (mean difference: -2.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.50 to -0.90; Conclusion: Our findings suggest that ACDs can optimize colonoscopy procedures, improve patient comfort, and reduce staff workload, warranting their integration into routine practice. Future studies should focus on standardizing ACD applications and exploring long-term outcomes to further enhance the benefits of this approach in clinical settings.
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.