SynthesisBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Development and multicenter external validation of a novel prediction model for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy.
Synthesis in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06438237 (Validation of a Prediction Model for Inadequate Bowel Preparation Before Colonoscopy Based on a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis), which is not on this 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.
Validation of a Prediction Model for Inadequate Bowel Preparation Before Colonoscopy Based on a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInadequate bowel preparation (IBP) seriously compromises the quality of colonoscopy. Existing prediction models for IBP before colonoscopy lack generalizability and are insufficiently validated across diverse bowel preparation regimens. This study aimed to develop a novel model for prediction of IBP based on a systematic review and meta-analysis, and then validate its performance against those of existing prediction models in a multicenter cohort.
methodsIn the development cohort, statistically significant risk factors for IBP were systematically reviewed, and included in the novel model and weighted according to their coefficients. In the external validation cohort, the discrimination and calibration performance of the novel model was evaluated and quantified by the concordance statistic (C-statistic) and calibration slope, respectively, and then compared against existing prediction models, which were systematically reviewed and identified, in a multicenter cohort study.
resultsTwenty-five cohorts comprising 39,403 patients (11,883 with IBP) were included in the meta-analysis regarding risk factors of IBP. Age, sex, body mass index, smoking, constipation, diabetes mellitus, ASA score, history of colorectal surgery, and use of antidepressants and opioids were finally included in the novel model. By collecting 2,360 patients (445 with IBP) from 4 medical centers, its performance was externally validated [C-statistics: 0.806 and 0.744 for split-dose and full-dose 3 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) regimens], respectively; calibration slope: 1.009 and 0.985, respectively], and superior to four existing models.
conclusionA novel model was developed and was shown to have a favorable predictive performance of IBP in patients receiving either split-dose or full-dose 3 L PEG regimens. REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov, TRN: NCT06438237, Registration date: 27 May 2024.
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.