SynthesisBMC gastroenterology2026
Influencing factors and individualized intervention strategies for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy in high-risk populations: a review based on the clinical practice of painless colonoscopy in China.
Synthesis in BMC gastroenterology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInadequate bowel preparation (IBP) significantly reduces the diagnostic accuracy of painless colonoscopy and increases complication risks. High-risk populations account for 28% of painless colonoscopy cases in China, with IBP rates ranging from 42% to 62%, but targeted nursing interventions remain underdeveloped.
objectiveTo systematically analyze IBP-related influencing factors and evaluate the effectiveness of individualized nursing interventions for high-risk populations undergoing painless colonoscopy in China.
methodsLiterature searches were conducted across the MEDLINE (via the PubMed interface, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and VIP from January 2020 to April 2024 using keywords related to bowel preparation, high-risk populations, and nursing intervention. Studies on Chinese high-risk populations undergoing painless colonoscopy were eligible if they reported IBP rate, bowel preparation score, or intervention adherence. RCTs, systematic reviews, and clinical guidelines were included. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist, and AGREE II Instrument. Data synthesis involved descriptive analysis and random-effects meta-analysis.
resultsA total of 43 studies (32 RCTs, 7 systematic reviews, 4 guidelines) were included. Six high-risk populations were identified: obese patients (BMI ≥ 28 kg/m²), patients with abdominal/pelvic surgery history, neurological disease patients, long-term medication users, children, and diabetic patients. Key influencing factors included gastrointestinal motility disorders, psychological anxiety, and medication interactions. Individualized interventions (e.g., dose-adjusted laxatives, nurse-led psychological counseling) reduced IBP rates by 23%-48% (pooled OR = 0.36, 95%CI:0.29-0.45, I²=45%).
conclusionIBP in high-risk populations is driven by multi-dimensional factors. Context-adapted nursing interventions (e.g., WeChat-guided education, parental participation training) significantly improve preparation quality. Standardized protocols for primary hospitals and child-specific regimens are urgently needed. These findings translate into a risk-stratified, nurse-pharmacist-led preparation pathway that can be implemented immediately-especially in primary hospitals-to reduce IBP and improve safety. And these findings pertain to six high-risk populations-obese, post-surgical, neurological disease, long-term medication users, children, and diabetics-as predefined in the Introduction.
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.