Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017:2017:4898914.
doi: 10.1155/2017/4898914. Epub 2017 Aug 8.

The Effectiveness of Personalized Bowel Preparation Using a Smartphone Camera Application: A Randomized Pilot Study

Jae Won Jung  1 , Jongha Park  1   2 , Gi Jung Jeon  3 , Young Soo Moon  1 , Sung Yuon Yang  1 , Tae Oh Kim  1   2 , Eui Tay Jung  4 , Hee-Cheol Kim  5
Affiliations

The Effectiveness of Personalized Bowel Preparation Using a Smartphone Camera Application: A Randomized Pilot Study

Jae Won Jung et al. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2017.

Abstract

Background: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of a smartphone application that analyzes and judges the optimal dosage of polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel preparation.

Methods: Patients were assigned to use the smartphone camera application (app group) or written instructions (non-app group). The smartphone camera application was programmed to analyze the bowel preparation quality and automatically determine the dosage of PEG from an analysis of stool images. In contrast, the non-app group consumed PEG solution according to the manual.

Results: The primary outcome was the quality of the bowel preparation based on blinded ratings using the Ottawa bowel preparation scale (OBPS). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean OBPS scores between the two groups (P = 0.950). However, the app group consumed a lower dose of PEG than the non-app group (mean dosage (mL): 3713.2 ± 405.8 versus 3979.2 ± 102.06, P = 0.001). The app group (5-point Likert scale; mean score 4.37 ± 0.895) had high acceptance of the application.

Conclusions: Although the app group consumed a lower PEG dose, the bowel preparation quality was similar in the two groups. Moreover, use of the smartphone camera application enhanced compliance with the bowel preparation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Display images of the smartphone camera application. (a) The user interface of the application, which consisted of the preparation analysis camera icon, the colonoscopy-related information icon, the bowel preparation process instruction icon, the application manual, and more. (b) The “Pass” screenshot. That image contains the message that patients can stop taking the PEG solution. (c) The “Fail” screenshot. That image contains the message that patients should keep taking the PEG solution.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flow diagram of the patients in the study. In the app and non-app groups, the procedure was stopped in 4 and 6 patients due to nonattendance. Seven patients in the app group failed to operate the application because they lacked an appropriate android OS version.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The analyses for each segment of the colon and the fluid quantity between the app and non-app groups.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Rex D. K., Schoenfeld P. S., Cohen J., et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2015;110(1):72–90. - PubMed
    1. Wexner S. D., Beck D. E., Baron T. H., et al. A consensus document on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: prepared by a task force from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques. 2006;20(7):1147–1160. doi: 10.1007/s00464-006-0152-y. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chokshi R. V., Hovis C. E., Hollander T., Early D. S., Wang J. S. Prevalence of missed adenomas in patients with inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2012;75(6):1197–1203. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.01.005. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Froehlich F., Wietlisbach V., Gonvers J. J., Burnand B., Vader J. P. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2005;61(3):378–384. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5107(04)02776-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Harewood G. C., Sharma V. K., de Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2003;58:76–79. doi: 10.1067/mge.2003.294. - DOI - PubMed