844 Double Blinded Randomized Control Trial to Evaluate If an Educational Video Can Improve Bowel Preparation

Bowman, Erik; Benson, Mark; Hourigan, Jon S.; Selby, Lisbeth; Caldera, Freddy

doi:10.1016/j.gie.2014.02.202

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among the four abstracts and one research letter that met study inclusion criteria (Appendices 3–5), three reported on educational videos [ 40 – 42 ], and two reported on printed instructions presented as a brochure and “photo aids” [ 43 , 44 ]. Four of the five non-full text studies reported a beneficial effect of the tested intervention [ 40 , 42 – 44 ]. Ergen, et al was the only study in our review performed in an inpatient setting [ 44 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Efficacious Are Patient Education Interventions to Improve Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy? A Systematic Review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundBowel preparation is inadequate in a large proportion of colonoscopies, leading to multiple clinical and economic harms. While most patients receive some form of education before colonoscopy, there is no consensus on the best approach.AimsThis systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of patient education interventions to improve bowel preparation.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Database, CINAHL, EMBASE, Ovid, and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria were: (1) a patient education intervention; (2) a primary aim of improving bowel preparation; (3) a validated bowel preparation scale; (4) a prospective design; (5) a concurrent control group; and, (6) adult participants. Study validity was assessed using a modified Downs and Black scale.Results1,080 abstracts were screened. Seven full text studies met inclusion criteria, including 2,660 patients. These studies evaluated multiple delivery platforms, including paper-based interventions (three studies), videos (two studies), re-education telephone calls the day before colonoscopy (one study), and in-person education by physicians (one study). Bowel preparation significantly improved with the intervention in all but one study. All but one study were done in a single center. Validity scores ranged from 13 to 24 (maximum 27). Four of five abstracts and research letters that met inclusion criteria also showed improvements in bowel preparation. Statistical and clinical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis.ConclusionCompared to usual care, patient education interventions appear efficacious in improving the quality of bowel preparation. However, because of the small scale of the studies and individualized nature of the interventions, results of these studies may not be generalizable to other settings. Healthcare practices should consider systematically evaluating their current bowel preparation education methods before undertaking new interventions.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Efficacious Are Patient Education Interventions to Improve Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy? A Systematic Review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All trials were included in the quantitative analyses. Eight studies (17.0%) were reported in conference proceedings, with only abstracts being available 30 , 32 , 33 , 41 , 44 , 52 , 55 , 65 . Publication dates ranged from 2001 and 2022.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The included studies were conducted in 13 countries: the United States (12 studies) 32 , 36 , 40 , 49 , 50 , 55 , 57 – 59 , 62 , 64 , 67 , China (10 studies) 16 , 35 , 37 , 46 , 47 , 52 , 63 , 69 , 71 , 72 , the Republic of Korea (9 studies) 31 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 44 , 45 , 51 , 53 , 54 , Spain (three studies) 29 , 48 , 60 , Hong Kong 42 , 43 , Germany 12 , 68 , and the Netherlands 17 , 66 (two studies each), and Australia 56 , Canada 65 , Denmark 34 , Lebanon 61 , Taiwan 70 , and the United Kingdom 30 (one study each). One study did not report the study setting 33 (Supplementary S8).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(Supplementary S10) Various validated bowel preparation scales were used to evaluate the quality of bowel preparation in the included studies. We identified 26 included studies using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) 12 , 17 , 29 – 33 , 35 , 37 , 39 – 41 , 44 , 45 , 55 , 59 , 60 , 63 – 69 , 71 , 72 , 10 using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS) 16 , 38 , 46 , 47 , 51 – 54 , 57 , 58 , five using the Aronchick scale (AC) 36 , 42 , 49 , 61 , 70 , one using the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS) 48 , and one using the AC and BBPS as measuring scales 43 . Two studies did not report the name of the bowel preparation scale used to evaluate bowel preparation quality in their trial report 34 , 50 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 , Table 1 , and Supplementary S12-S13. Three included studies did not report the standard deviations (SDs) for both the intervention and comparison groups 33 , 58 , 64 . Therefore, these trials were not comprised in the quantitative analyses of the quality of bowel preparation score outcome.…”

Section: Results Of Synthesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Wonggom

Rattanakanokchai

Suebkinorn

2023

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

844 Double Blinded Randomized Control Trial to Evaluate If an Educational Video Can Improve Bowel Preparation

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

How Efficacious Are Patient Education Interventions to Improve Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy? A Systematic Review

How Efficacious Are Patient Education Interventions to Improve Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy? A Systematic Review

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About