ArticleCureus2026
Does a Non-English-Speaking Background Affect the Quality of Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy?
Article in Cureus, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Bowel preparation quality is critical for colonoscopy diagnostic yield. Whether a non-English-speaking background (NESB) adversely affects preparation quality in Australia is unknown. We aimed to determine whether NESB status is associated with inadequate bowel preparation compared to English-speaking background (ESB) patients, and to identify other clinical predictors. Methods A retrospective audit of consecutive patients undergoing elective colonoscopy at the Northern Hospital, Epping, Victoria (September-November 2017). NESB was defined as a primary language other than English. Preparation quality was assessed using the Aronchick scale, dichotomised as adequate (excellent/good/fair) or inadequate. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors of inadequate preparation. Results Of 1,385 patients, 1,129 (81.5%) were ESB and 256 (18.5%) NESB. Professional interpreters were used by 73.0% of NESB patients. Inadequate preparation occurred in 8.9% of ESB and 6.2% of NESB patients; no significant difference was found on univariable (p=0.16) or age-adjusted multivariable analysis (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42-1.27; p=0.26). No factor reached statistical significance at the 5% level, although extended bowel preparation (adjusted OR 1.83, p=0.06), morning-list colonoscopy (adjusted OR 1.45, p=0.06), Moviprep (adjusted OR 1.47, p=0.09) and age (adjusted OR 0.88 per 10-year increment, in the direction of lower rather than higher risk with increasing age; p=0.06) approached it; male sex was not associated with inadequate preparation (adjusted OR 1.27, p=0.23). Conclusions We found no evidence of an association between NESB status and inadequate bowel preparation at a culturally diverse Australian institution, although the confidence interval remains compatible with both a modest protective and a modest harmful association. High utilisation of professional interpreter services may mitigate language barriers in preparation adherence. In contrast to previous reports, male sex, extended preparation and morning-list timing were not statistically significant independent predictors of inadequate preparation in this cohort, although extended preparation and morning-list timing showed trends consistent with the published literature that this study was underpowered to resolve.
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.