ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopy
Toward high-quality bowel preparation in Italy: insights from a nationwide cross-sectional survey of endoscopists.
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopy. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Understanding endoscopists' perspectives and routine practice offers opportunities to improve bowel cleansing for colonoscopy. Objective: To elucidate Italian endoscopists' perceptions of bowel preparation quality, focusing on defining high-quality cleansing (HQC) and its perceived benefits in clinical practice and for diagnostic outcomes. Design: Nationwide, cross-sectional, web-based survey. Methods: A nationwide, web-based cross-sectional survey was undertaken in Italy between August and September 2024 among gastroenterologists with special interest in endoscopy. Participants were recruited via telephone screening; of 498 gastroenterologists contacted, 150 respondents completed an online questionnaire; analyses were descriptive. Results: The survey results revealed that all respondents (100%) routinely evaluate and document cleansing in the endoscopy report and almost all (99%) used validated scales. The majority (72%) of endoscopists aimed for HQC, which they defined as a segment score of ⩾8-9 on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale or 'excellent' on the Aronchick scale. Almost all (93%) considered HQC important in every colonoscopy regardless of indication. All respondents considered that HQC allows higher identification rates for adenomas and sessile serrated lesions, reduces procedure time, and improves overall clinical efficiency; 99% considered that HQC allows for more appropriate surveillance intervals. On a scale of 1-10 to rate confidence with the diagnostic reliability of the exam (1 = not at all confident, 10 = very confident), the respondents' levels of confidence improved with high-quality bowel preparation; mean scores were 2.1 with inadequate preparation, 6.6 with good cleansing and 9.2 with high-quality bowel cleansing. Conclusion: The survey revealed that the vast majority of Italian endoscopists consider HQC essential across all clinical indications. The results support the transition from 'good' to 'high-quality' cleansing as the new standard in clinical colonoscopy practice.
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.