SynthesisArquivos de gastroenterologia2026
EFFICACY OF WATER INFUSION VERSUS AIR/CO2 INSUFFLATION FOR COLONOSCOPY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.
Synthesis in Arquivos de gastroenterologia, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColonoscopy is a widely used screening method for colorectal cancer, playing a crucial role in early detection and prevention by allowing visualization and removal of precancerous lesions. It also helps diagnose and manage neoplastic lesions and inflammatory bowel disease by providing direct visualization of the intestinal mucosa. However, traditional air or carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation may limit complete visualization of the colon. Alternatively, water infusion causes local distension without elongating the colon (unlike air insufflation), while warm water reduces spasms, decreasing insertion time and patient discomfort.
objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare water infusion versus air/CO2 insufflation in terms of technical efficacy, evaluate the effect of water immersion on procedural difficulty, and determine the accuracy of water immersion colonoscopy in detecting colon adenomas.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases for randomized controlled trials published from inception to January 2023. Outcomes included adenoma detection rate, success rate of cecal intubation, cecal intubation time, total procedure time (from insertion to withdrawal), need for abdominal compression, and on-demand sedation rate. Thirty randomized controlled trials were included.
resultsadenoma detection rate, success rate of cecal intubation, cecal intubation time, and total procedure time showed no significant difference between the two methods (P>0.05). However, water infusion significantly reduced the proportion of participants requiring on-demand sedation (risk ratio 0.61, 95%CI 0.48-0.77, P=0.02) and abdominal compression (risk ratio 0.65, 95%CI 0.51-0.83, P<0.01).
conclusionColonoscopy with water infusion helps the colonoscope reach the cecum more easily, decreasing the need for on-demand sedation and abdominal compression.
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.