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
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Jul 4;13(1):10783.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-37044-w.

Effectiveness of bowel preparation innovative technology instructions (BPITIs) on clinical outcomes among patients undergoing colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Effectiveness of bowel preparation innovative technology instructions (BPITIs) on clinical outcomes among patients undergoing colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Parichat Wonggom et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

To evaluate the effectiveness of bowel preparation innovative technology instructions (BPITIs) among patients undergoing colonoscopy. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs from inception to February 28, 2022. The Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool and GRADE were used to assess RoB and certainty of evidence, respectively. Meta-analyses with random-effects model were used for analysis. This review included 47 RCTs (84 records). Seven BPITIs were found among included studies: (1) mobile apps, (2) VDO stream from personal devices, (3) VDO stream from a hospital device, (4) SMS re-education, (5) telephone re-education, (6) computer-based education, and (7) web-based education. The findings demonstrate that BPITIs have a slight impact on adherence to overall instructions (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.13-1.28; moderate-certainty evidence), adequate bowel preparation (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.07-1.13; low-certainty evidence), and quality of bowel preparation score (SMD 0.42, 95% CI 0.33-0.52; low-certainty evidence) compared to routine care. BPITIs may enhance the clinical outcomes. Due to the low-certainty evidence and heterogeneity of the included studies, the findings should be interpreted cautiously. Well-designed and reported RCTs are required to confirm the findings.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021217846.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Summary of findings table for primary outcomes. ■, downgrade one level for each GRADE domain; ⨁, level of certainty of evidence; k, number of studies; n, number of participants; RR, risk ratio; MD, mean difference; SMD, standardized mean difference; CI, confidence interval.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Summary risk of bias of included studies.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Effects of bowel preparation innovative technology interventions (BPITIs) on adherence with instructions for overall preparation, purgative intake, and diets. Telephone, telephone re-education; SMS, short message service; VDO hospital, video stream from an on-site hospital device; VDO personal devices, video stream from personal devices.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Effects of bowel preparation innovative technology interventions (BPITIs) on (A) adequate bowel preparation and (B) bowel cleansing score. Telephone, telephone re-education; SMS, short message service; VDO hospital, video stream from an on-site hospital device; VDO personal devices, video stream from personal devices.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Subgroup analyses of the effects of bowel preparation innovative technology interventions (BPITIs) on (A) adequate bowel preparation and (B) bowel cleansing score by bowel preparation quality scales. Telephone, telephone re-education; SMS, short message service; VDO hospital, video stream from an on-site hospital device; VDO personal devices, video stream from personal devices.

References

    1. Keum NN, Giovannucci E. Global burden of colorectal cancer: Emerging trends, risk factors and prevention strategies. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2019;16:713–732. doi: 10.1038/s41575-019-0189-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. WHO—World Health Organization GLOBOCAN—Colorectal cancer incidence in the world. Glob. Cancer Obs. 2020;419:1–2.
    1. Guren MG. The global challenge of colorectal cancer. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2019;4:894–895. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30329-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Low EE, et al. Risk factors for early-onset colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2020;159:492–501.e7. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.004. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kaminski MF, Robertson DJ, Senore C, Rex DK. Optimizing the quality of colorectal cancer screening worldwide. Gastroenterology. 2020;158:404–417. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.11.026. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types