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
Review
. 2019 Feb;7(2):E216-E224.
doi: 10.1055/a-0796-6423. Epub 2019 Jan 18.

Use of smartphone applications to improve quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Madhav Desai  1 , Venkat Nutalapati  1 , Ajay Bansal  1 , Daniel Buckles  1 , John Bonino  1 , Mojtaba Olyaee  1 , Amit Rastogi  1
Affiliations
Review

Use of smartphone applications to improve quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Madhav Desai et al. Endosc Int Open. 2019 Feb.

Abstract

Introduction Smartphone-based applications (apps) have been used to improve the quality of bowel preparation (prep) but the success rates have been variable. We have performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of smartphone apps on bowel preparation. Methods Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane) were reviewed for eligible studies of smartphone apps versus standard education before colonoscopy. The following outcomes were analyzed: pooled rate of adequacy of bowel prep among both arms and Boston bowel preparation score (BBPS) when reported. Pooled analysis was reported as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference in random effect model with Review Manager 5.3 ( P ≤ 0.05 for statistical significance). Results Six studies were eligible with smartphone app (810 patients) vs. standard education (855 patients, control group) for bowel prep. The smartphone app group had a higher proportion of adequate bowel prep compared to the control group: 87.5 % vs 77.5 % (five studies), pooled OR 2.67; 95 %CI 1.00 – 7.13 with P = 0.05. There was substantial heterogeneity in studies with I 2 = 78 %. When analysis was limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), smartphone app users had a numerically higher rate of bowel cleansing: 87.1 % vs 76.9 %; however, pooled OR was not statistically significant (OR 2.66, 95 %CI 0.92 – 7.69, P = 0.07). When studies using BBPS were evaluated (n = 3), smartphone app users had higher mean scores (better bowel prep) with a mean difference of 0.9 (95 %CI 0.5 – 1.3), which was statistically significant ( P < 0.01). Conclusion The smartphone app is a novel educational tool that can assist in achieving adequate and better bowel cleansing before colonoscopy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests None

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study flow diagram.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Adequate bowel prep among both groups (all studies).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Boston Bowel Preparation Score among both groups.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Adequate bowel prep among both groups (only RCTs).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Cancer Facts and Figures American Cancer Society; Accessed at:2017https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/all-cancer-facts...
    1. Johnson D A, Barkun A N, Cohen L B et al.Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:1528–1545. - PubMed
    1. Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers J J et al.Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61:378–384. - PubMed
    1. Rex D K, Imperiale T F, Latinovich D R et al.Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:1696–1700. - PubMed
    1. Harewood G C, Sharma V K, de Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:76–79. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources