ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopy
Optimizing bowel preparation regimens for colon capsule endoscopy: an umbrella review (overview of systematic reviews).
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a minimally invasive alternative to colonoscopy, but its diagnostic performance depends entirely on adequate mucosal cleansing (adequate cleansing rate, ACR) and complete colonic transit (completion rate, CR). These requirements impose stringent preparation demands. Existing systematic reviews (SRs) show substantial heterogeneity in recommendations. Objectives: To identify optimal CCE preparation strategies. Design: Umbrella review (overview of SRs). Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted through November 2025 for SRs and meta-analyses (MAs) assessing CCE bowel preparation regimens. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR2, and primary study overlap was quantified using the Corrected Covered Area (CCA). Outcomes included ACR and CR, stratified by preparation components. Results: Fourteen SRs (11 MAs) encompassing 102 primary studies (moderate overlap, CCA 8.59%) were included. Pooled ACR (72.5%-76.8%) and CR (79.8%-83.0%) remained below colonoscopy benchmarks. In inflammatory bowel disease, ACR varied widely (49%-98.5%) with no superior regimen. In the general population, low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG <4 L) yielded higher ACR (77.5%) than high-volume PEG (72.9%). Sodium phosphate (NaP) boosters outperformed PEG specifically for CR, with NaP + Gastrografin achieving the highest CR (93.1%). Castor oil improved excretion (OR 0.17 of incomplete CCE transit, 95% CI 0.09-0.32), and routine prokinetics improved CR compared with no use (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.13-3.05). Low-fiber diets provided better cleansing than clear liquids (ACR 78.5% vs 70.0%). Conclusion: Current CCE bowel preparation regimens demonstrate variable performance relative to targets, with no single intervention demonstrating unequivocal superiority over others in pairwise comparisons. Evidence supports optimizing performance via low-volume PEG, NaP or Gastrografin-based boosters, routine prokinetics, and a low-fiber diet. A universal regimen is unlikely to suit all patients, highlighting the need for personalized protocols. Standardized cleansing scores and AI-assisted assessment are critical to improving reproducibility and cost-effectiveness.
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.