Dataset Information

Meta-analysis: The effect of patient education on bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

ABSTRACT: The proportion of outpatients with inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy is high owing to patient unawareness of its importance and poor adherence to instructions. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the effect of educational intervention on the quality of bowel preparation before colonoscopy.A comprehensive literature review identified randomized controlled trials measuring the effect of educational intervention on the quality of bowel preparation. Two reviewers independently screened relevant articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcome was the quality of each bowel preparation before colonoscopy, using a particular assessment scale. The secondary outcomes were polyp detection rates during the procedure and the need for a repeat colonoscopy due to incomplete examination.Nine randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. In all, 2885 patients were enrolled, with 1458 receiving education and 1427 assigned to the control group. An educational intervention before colonoscopy significantly improved bowel preparation (relative risk [RR] = 1.22; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.10 - 1.36), however, no significant differences were identified in polyp detection rates (RR = 1.14; 95 %CI 0.87 - 1.51) or the need for repeat colonoscopy (RR = 0.52; 95 %CI 0.25 - 1.04) between the groups. Asymmetry in the appearance of the funnel plot and the result of Egger test (P < 0.001) suggested that publication bias existed.Evidence from these randomized controlled trials shows that a brief counseling session with patients before colonoscopy ensures better bowel preparation. However, evidence is insufficient to assess improvements in polyp detection rate and avoidance of a repeat colonoscopy. Despite these encouraging observations, this meta-analysis had some limitations, including potential publication bias and significant heterogeneity of the types of bowel purgatives. These results should be interpreted with caution.

SUBMITTER: Chang CW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4683152 | biostudies-other | 2015 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Shared Molecules

Only show the datasets with similarity scores above: 0.5

Threshold

0.5

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Inadequate bowel preparation (BP) is an unfavorable factor that influence the success of colonoscopy. Although standard education (SE) given to patients are proved useful to avoid inadequate BP. Studies concerning the effects of reinforced education (RE) on the quality of BP were inconsistent. The aim of this updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial was to compare the quality of BP between patients receiving RE in addition to SE and those receiving SE alone. METHODS:MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were systemically searched to identify the relevant studies published through April 2019. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate BP. Subgroup analyses were conducted. Secondary outcomes included BP score, adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR), insertion time, withdrawal time, adverse events, >80% purgative intake and diet compliance. Dichotomous variables were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were reported as mean difference (MD) with 95%CI. Pooled estimates of OR or MD were calculated using a random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity was accessed by calculating the I2 value. A P value less than 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS:A total of 18 randomized controlled trails (N = 6536) were included in this meta-analysis. Patients who received RE had a better BP quality than those only receiving SE (OR 2.59, 95%CI: 2.09-3.19; P<0.001). A higher ADR (OR 1.35; 95%CI: 1.06-1.72; P = 0.020) and PDR (OR 1.24, 95%CI: 1.02-1.50; P = 0.030), shorter insertion (MD -0.76; 95%CI: -1.48-(-0.04); P = 0.040) and withdrawal time (MD -0.83; 95%CI: -1.83-(-0.28); P = 0.003), less nausea/vomiting (OR 0.78; 95%CI: 0.64-0.97; P = 0.020) and abdominal distension (OR 0.72; 95%CI: 0.68-0.92; P = 0.020) were achieved in the RE group. More patients had >80% purgative intake (OR 2.17; 95%CI, 1.09-4.32; P = 0.030) and were compliant with diet restriction (OR 2.38; 95%CI: 1.79-3.17; P<0.001) in the RE group. CONCLUSION:RE significantly improved BP quality, increased ADR and PDR, decreased insertion and withdrawal time and adverse events.

Project description:BackgroundBowel preparation for colonoscopy is often poorly tolerated due to poor palatability and adverse effects. This can negatively impact on the patient experience and on the quality of bowel preparation. This systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out to assess whether adjuncts to bowel preparation affected palatability, tolerability and quality of bowel preparation (bowel cleanliness).MethodsA systematic search strategy was conducted on PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify studies evaluating adjunct use for colonoscopic bowel preparation. Studies comparing different regimens and volumes were excluded. Specific outcomes studied included palatability (taste), willingness to repeat bowel preparation, gastrointestinal adverse events and the quality of bowel preparation. Data across studies were pooled using a random-effects model and heterogeneity assessed using I2-statistics.ResultsOf 467 studies screened, six were included for analysis (all single-blind randomised trials; n = 1187 patients). Adjuncts comprised citrus reticulata peel, orange juice, menthol candy drops, simethicone, Coke Zero and sugar-free chewing gum. Overall, adjunct use was associated with improved palatability (mean difference 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.29-0.96, p < 0.001) on a scale of 0-5, acceptability of taste (odds ratio 2.75, 95% confidence interval: 1.52-4.95, p < 0.001) and willingness to repeat bowel preparation (odds ratio 2.92, 95% confidence interval: 1.97-4.35, p < 0.001). Patients in the adjunct group reported lower rates of bloating (odds ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval: 0.29-0.77, p = 0.003) and vomiting (odds ratio 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.81, p = 0.007), but no difference in nausea (p = 0.10) or abdominal pain (p = 0.62). Adjunct use resulted in superior bowel cleanliness (odds ratio 2.52, 95% confidence interval: 1.31-4.85, p = 0.006). Heterogeneity varied across outcomes, ranging from 0% (vomiting) to 81% (palatability), without evidence of publication bias. The overall quality of evidence was rated moderate.ConclusionIn this meta-analysis, the use of adjuncts was associated with better palatability, less vomiting and bloating, willingness to repeat bowel preparation and superior quality of bowel preparation. The addition of adjuncts to bowel preparation may improve outcomes of colonoscopy and the overall patient experience.

Project description:BackgroundVarious enhanced patient instructions (EPIs) have been used for bowel preparation (BP) and our previous meta-analysis also demonstrated the efficacy of EPIs in increasing the colonic polyp and adenoma detection rates; however, the optimal method for adequate BP has not yet been developed.ObjectiveWe performed a network meta-analysis to determine the optimal instructions.MethodsWe searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of EPIs with each other or standard patient instructions (SPIs) for BP. We performed direct and Bayesian network meta-analyses for all instructions and used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria to appraise the quality of evidence.ResultsWe included 23 RCTs (7969 patients) comparing 10 different instructions. In direct meta-analyses, most of the EPIs, except visual aids and mobile apps, increased the adequate preparation rate (APR). Network meta-analyses showed that additional explanations were superior to visual aids (odds ratio [OR] 0.35, 95% CI 0.19-0.59), telephone calls (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.37-0.99), educational videos (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.5-0.77), and mobile apps (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14-0.68) with low-to-high-quality evidence; newly designed booklets (OR 3.28, 95% CI 1.59-6.16), SMS text messaging (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.28-3.91), telephone calls (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.03-1.78), educational videos (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.40-3.65), and social media applications (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.4-3.93) were superior to visual aids and mobile apps with low-to-high-quality evidence. SMS text messaging, telephone calls, and social media applications increase adherence to and satisfaction with the BP regime. Social media applications reduce the risk of adverse events (AEs). Telephone calls and social media applications increase the polyp detection rate (PDR).ConclusionsNewly designed booklets, telephone calls, educational videos, and social media applications can improve the quality of BP. Telephone calls and social media applications improve adherence to and satisfaction with the BP regime, reduce the risk of AEs, and increase the PDR.Trial registrationINPLASY (International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols) INPLASY2020120103; https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2020-12-0103/.

Project description:Although adequate bowel preparation is a prerequisite for colonoscopy, preparation among inpatients is often suboptimal. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of ward nurse education on the quality of bowel preparation of inpatients.A prospective, double-blinded, non-randomized, controlled study was performed. Expert endoscopists provided enhanced education to nurses who belonged to an "educated ward" followed by training that was repeated every week for 1 month. The primary outcome was the quality of the bowel preparation, which was based on the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS). Patient compliance and their subjective feelings and the factors affecting inadequate bowel preparation were also analyzed.One hundred three inpatients in the educated ward and 102 patients in the control ward were enrolled. Baseline data were comparable between the 2 wards. The mean values of the total OBPS scores were 4.42 ± 2.23 and 6.15 ± 2.38 in the educated and control wards, respectively (P < 0.001). The rate of poor preparation (OBPS ≥ 6) in the educated ward was significantly lower than that in the control ward (31.1% vs 58.8%, P < 0.001). Compliance with preparation and diet instructions in the educated ward was superior to that in the control ward (P<0.001). Control patients were more likely to be anxious before colonoscopy (P < 0.001), whereas patients in the educated ward showed higher level of satisfaction (P = 0.001) and better sleep quality (P < 0.001). A lack of ward nurse education (OR 2.365, P = 0.025), constipation (OR 6.517, P < 0.001), and insufficient water ingestion (OR 2.044, P = 0.042) were independently associated with inadequate bowel preparation among inpatients.Ward nurse education effectively improved the quality of bowel preparation, and relevant colonoscopic outcomes among inpatients. Additional efforts are needed to control constipation and to encourage additional water ingestion in inpatients for better bowel preparation.