ArticleClinical endoscopy2026
To what extent can bowel preparation quality be considered "adequate"?: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile low-quality bowel preparation is known to reduce the adenoma detection rate (ADR), the distinction between intermediate- and high-quality preparations remains unclear.
methodsElectronic searches were conducted in PubMed and Embase through July 2024. Randomized controlled trials reporting ADR and the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) were included, and outcomes were pooled according to bowel preparation quality using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was ADR in intermediate-quality (BBPS ≥6, and ≥2 in each segment) versus high-quality (BBPS≥8) bowel preparation. Secondary outcomes included advanced ADR.
resultsFourteen trials were included (5,246 in the high-quality group and 1,728 in the other group). There was no significant difference in ADR (risk difference [RD], -0.02; p=0.13; I2=21%). Subgroup analyses showed no significant difference with computer-aided detection (CADe; RD, -0.03; p=0.70; I2=81%) or linked color imaging (RD, 0.04; p=0.31; I2=0%). The heterogeneity observed with CADe may reflect differences in colonoscopist experience or CADe systems. The results were similar for advanced ADR. Funnel plot and Egger's test indicated minimal publication bias.
conclusionsIntermediate-quality preparation allows adequate adenoma detection. When each BBPS subscore is ≥2, surveillance recommendations can generally be followed.
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.