ArticleiGIE : innovation, investigation and insights2023
Diagnostic yield of random colon biopsy sampling in patients with chronic diarrhea and normal colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Most colonoscopy examinations in patients with chronic unexplained diarrhea do not reveal endoscopic abnormalities, and routine random colon biopsy specimens are taken for further diagnostic assessment. In this study, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to study the pooled diagnostic value of random colon biopsy sampling in this patient population. Methods: Multiple databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase) were searched in May 2022 for studies evaluating the diagnostic yield of random biopsy sampling in patients with chronic diarrhea with normal colonoscopy examinations. Standard meta-analysis methods used the random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed using the Results: Twenty-one studies were included in the study (3322 patients). The pooled rate of normal colon biopsy sampling was 48% (95% confidence interval [CI], 31-65.2; Conclusions: This meta-analysis of 21 studies demonstrated significant histopathologic change in 30% and microscopic colitis in 15%. Normal colon biopsy sampling was noted in 48% and normal ileum biopsy sampling in 88.5%. Ileal biopsy data were based on limited data and studies (only 3 included). In studies with a mean patient age <49 years, 40% demonstrated significant histopathologic changes.
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.