SynthesisPloS one2026
Risk prediction models for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInadequate bowel preparation (IBP) can impair the safety, efficiency, and diagnostic accuracy of colonoscopy. Numerous multivariable prediction models have been developed to identify patients at high risk of IBP, yet their reported performance varies substantially.
objectivesTo systematically evaluate the predictive performance and methodological quality of existing risk prediction models for IBP before colonoscopy.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP were systematically searched from inception to December 16, 2024, and updated on December 16, 2025. Data extraction was guided by the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS). Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) with 95% confidence intervals from internal and external validations were pooled separately using random-effects models (Stata 18). Risk of bias and applicability were evaluated with PROBAST. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024627756).
resultsThirty-one studies reporting 46 prediction models were included, with sample sizes ranging from 152 to 23,456 participants and IBP event incidence rates of 6.3%-50.0%. Frequently used predictors included constipation, diabetes, age, body mass index (BMI), and history of colorectal surgery. Pooled AUCs were 0.76 (95% CI: 0.73-0.79) for internal validation and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.68-0.76) for external validation, both with substantial heterogeneity (I² > 90%). External validation was reported in ten studies, comprising 15 external validation cohorts, including four independent external validation studies of previously published models. Calibration was infrequently reported. Most studies were at high risk of bias, mainly in the analysis domain, while applicability concerns were generally low.
conclusionsExisting IBP prediction models show moderate to good discrimination on average, but pooled estimates are accompanied by substantial heterogeneity and widespread risk of bias, and robust external validation remains limited. Future studies should standardize outcome definitions and reporting and conduct large, multicenter, independent external validations to improve clinical utility.
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.