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.
Background: Although gastric variceal (GV) bleeding is less common than esophageal variceal bleeding, the severity of GV bleeding is often greater with higher morbidity and mortality rates. Minimally invasive endovascular treatments such as balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) have been used for the management of GVs with varying results, and individual and institutional differences exist in the use of BRTO and TIPS. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of BRTO and TIPS for the treatment of GVs because of portal hypertension. Methods: Searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases were performed from inception through March 2019. Summary odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was estimated for technical success, hemostasis rate, postprocedural complications, rebleeding rate, incidence of hepatic encephalopathy, and mortality rate at 1 year utilizing a random-effects model. Results: Seven studies with a total of 676 patients (BRTO: 462 and TIPS: 214) were included. There was no difference in pooled technical success rate (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.28-2.73; P=0.81), hemostasis rate (OR, 2.74; 95% CI, 0.61-12.26; P=0.19), and postoperative procedure-related complications (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 0.44-8.72; P=0.38). However, treatment with BRTO was associated with lower rates of postoperative rebleeding (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.18-0.48; P<0.00001), postoperative encephalopathy (OR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.02-0.15; P < 0.00001), and mortality at 1 year (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.21-0.87; P=0.02). Conclusions: BRTO was associated with lower rates of rebleeding, postprocedure hepatic encephalopathy, and mortality at 1 year. BRTO should be considered first-line modality for the treatment of GVs because of portal hypertension.
BACKGROUND & AIMS:The risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) among patients with no adenomas, low-risk adenomas (LRAs), or high-risk adenomas (HRAs), detected at index colonoscopy, is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare incidence rates of metachronous CRC and CRC-related mortality after a baseline colonoscopy for each group. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases for studies that reported the incidence of CRC and adenoma characteristics after colonoscopy. The primary outcome was odds of metachronous CRC and CRC-related mortality per 10,000 person-years of follow-up after baseline colonoscopy for all the groups. RE-SULTS: Our final analysis included 12 studies with 510,019 patients (mean age, 59.2 ± 2.6 years; 55% male; mean duration of follow up, 8.5 ± 3.3 years). The incidence of CRC per 10,000 person-years was marginally higher for patients with LRAs compared to those with no adenomas (4.5 vs 3.4; odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06-1.51; I 2 ¼0), but significantly higher for patients with HRAs compared to those with no adenoma ( 13.8 vs 3.4; odds ratio [OR], 2.92; 95% CI, 2.31-3.69; I 2 ¼0 ) and patients with HRAs compared to LRAs (13.81 vs 4.5; OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.72-3.20; I 2 ¼55%). However, the CRC-related mortality per 10,000 person-years did not differ significantly for patients with LRAs compared to no adenomas (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.76-1.74; I 2 ¼0) but was significantly higher in persons with HRAs compared with LRAs (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.30-4.75; I 2 ¼38%) and no adenomas (OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.87-3.87; I 2 ¼0). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that the risk of metachronous CRC and mortality is significantly higher for patients with HRAs, but this risk is very low in patients with LRAs, comparable to patients with no adenomas. Follow-up of patients with LRAs detected at index colonoscopy should be the same as for persons with no adenomas.
Background and study aims Standard colonoscopy (SC) is the preferred modality for screening for colon cancer; however, it carries a significant polyp/adenoma miss rate. Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CC) has been shown to improve polyp/adenoma detection rate, decrease cecal intubation time and increase cecal intubation rate when compared to standard colonoscopy (SC). However, data on adenoma detection rate (ADR) are conflicting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the performance of CC with SC for ADR among high-quality randomized controlled trials. Patients and methods We performed an extensive literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane and Web of Science databases and abstracts published at national meetings. Only comparative studies between CC and SC were included if they reported ADR, adenoma per person (APP), cecal intubation rate, and cecal intubation time. The exclusion criterion for comparing ADR was studies with Jadad score ≤ 2. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel method. I 2 test was used to measure heterogeneity among studies. Results Analysis of high-quality studies (Jadad score ≥ 3, total of 7 studies) showed that use of cap improved the ADR with the results being statistically significant (OR 1.18, 95 % CI 1.03 – 1.33) and detection of 0.16 (0.02 – 0.30) additional APP. The cecal intubation rate in the CC group was 96.3 % compared to 94.5 % with SC (total of 17 studies). Use of cap improved cecal intubation (OR 1.61, 95 % CI 1.33 – 1.95) when compared to SC ( P value < 0.001). Use of cap decreased cecal intubation time by an average of 0.88 minutes (95 % CI 0.37 – 1.39) or 53 seconds. Conclusions Meta-analysis of high-quality studies showed that CC improved the ADR compared to SC.
BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are routinely used for diverticulitis irrespective of severity. Current practice guidelines favor against the use of antibiotics for acute uncomplicated diverticulitis. OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the role of antibiotic use in an episode of uncomplicated diverticulitis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane were used. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies included those with patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis receiving any antibiotics compared with patients not receiving any antibiotics (or observed alone). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pooled odds rate of total complications, treatment failure, recurrent diverticulitis, readmission rate, sigmoid resection, mortality rate, and length of stay were measured. RESULTS: Of 1050 citations reviewed, 7 studies were eligible for the analysis. There were total of 2241 patients: 895 received antibiotics (mean age = 59.1 y; 38% men) and 1346 did not receive antibiotics (mean age = 59.4 y; 37% men). Antibiotics were later added in 2.7% patients who initially were observed off antibiotics. Length of hospital stay was not significantly different among either group (no antibiotics = 3.1 d vs antibiotics = 4.5 d; p = 0.20). Pooled rate of recurrent diverticulitis was not significantly different among both groups (pooled OR = 1.27 (95%, CI 0.90–1.79); p = 0.18). Rate of total complications (pooled OR = 1.99 (95% CI, 0.66–6.01); p = 0.22), treatment failure (pooled OR = 0.68 (95% CI, 0.42–1.09); p = 0.11), readmissions (pooled OR = 0.75 (95% CI, 0.44–1.30); p = 0.31). and patients who required sigmoid resection (pooled OR = 3.37 (95% CI, 0.65–17.34); p = 0.15) were not significantly different among patients who received antibiotics and those who did not. Mortality rates were 4 of 1310 (no-antibiotic group) versus 4 of 863 (antibiotic group). LIMITATIONS: Only 2 randomized controlled studies were available and there was high heterogeneity in existing data. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of current literature shows that patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis can be monitored off antibiotics.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.