Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy of low volume versus traditional standard volume PEG on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: Protocol for an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

ABSTRACT: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) has been considered as the first recommendation for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. A previous meta-analysis suggested that low volume PEG may improve the acceptability of ingesting bowel preparation solution. However, several limitations impaired the power of findings from this published meta-analysis, such as the variation in study design of included trials and adjuvant prescriptions. Moreover, some studies related to this topic have been published recently. And thus, the aim of this updated meta-analysis is to further assess the comparative efficacy of low volume versus standard volume of PEG on bowel preparation before colonoscopy with trial sequential analysis (TSA).Systematic searches will be performed to capture any potential randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigated the comparative efficacy of low volume versus traditional standard volume PEG on bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Moreover, we will also manually check the bibliographies of related studies and reviews so as to get additional studies. Two reviewers will independently screen the citation records, extract essential information, and appraise the risk of bias of each RCT in sequence. Finally, we will used the STATA software version 12.0 and TSA software version beta 0.9 to statistically analyze all data and test the robust of each pooled result, respectively.We will submit the full-text of systematic review to a peer-review journal for publication.This updated systematic review and meta-analysis with TSA will further assess the comparative efficacy and safety of low-volume versus traditional standard volume PEG for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. And then, a more comprehensive evidence body on low-volume compared to standard volume PEG in bowel preparation will be constructed.

SUBMITTER: Yi LJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5944532 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative efficacy of low volume versus traditional standard volume PEG on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: Protocol for an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

Yi Li-Juan LJ Tian Xu X Pi Yuan-Ping YP Feng Ling L Chen Hui H Liu Xiao-Ling XL Chen Wei-Qing WQ

Medicine 20180401 17

<h4>Introduction</h4>Polyethylene glycol (PEG) has been considered as the first recommendation for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. A previous meta-analysis suggested that low volume PEG may improve the acceptability of ingesting bowel preparation solution. However, several limitations impaired the power of findings from this published meta-analysis, such as the variation in study design of included trials and adjuvant prescriptions. Moreover, some studies related to this topic have been ...[more]

PMID: 29703060

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: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/.

Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy of low volume versus traditional standard volume PEG on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: Protocol for an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

Publications

Comparative efficacy of low volume versus traditional standard volume PEG on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: Protocol for an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets