ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Bowel Preparation Quality for Optimal Sessile Serrated Lesions Detection: Is Excellent the Enemy of Good?
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2026. 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
BACKGROUND/
aimsBowel preparation quality is a critical indicator of colonoscopy performance. This study investigated the relationship between different adequate preparation levels and the detection rates of SSLs.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 9,854 individuals with adequate bowel preparation (Aronchick scale) undergoing index colonoscopy. The primary outcome was SSL detection rate (SSLDR), and secondary outcomes include adenoma detection rate (ADR). Multivariable logistic regression and sensitivity analyses were performed to identify independent predictors.
resultsSSLDR was significantly higher in the "good" preparation group compared to the "excellent" group (8.4% vs. 4.7%, P < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis including fecal occult blood test results, symptomatic presentation (OR 10.22; 95% CI, 5.49-19.02), high-performing endoscopist expertise (OR 3.78; 95% CI, 2.34-6.11), and longer withdrawal time (OR 1.15 per minute; 95% CI, 1.12-1.19) were identified as strong independent predictors of SSL detection. Conversely, positive FOBT results (OR 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.68) and synchronous adenoma detection (OR 0.39; 95% CI, 0.28-0.52) were inversely associated with SSL detection. Sensitivity analysis of the full cohort confirmed these procedural predictors and the robust inverse relationship with synchronous adenomas (OR 0.42; P < 0.001). ADR was also independently higher in the good preparation group (OR 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.69, P < 0.001).
conclusionsExcellent bowel preparation did not translate into a higher SSLDR compared to good preparation. Instead, SSL detection may be primarily driven by endoscopist expertise, inspection time, and the clinical context of the patient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41591713What 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.