A247 L-Menthol During Colonoscopy for Adenoma Detection in an Intermediate Risk Patient Population: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

Dhillon, Amit; Alshankiti, Suliman; Khorasani-Zadeh, Arman; Sultanian, Richard; Sandha, Gurpal; Kohansal, A R; Montaño-Loza, Aldo J.; Zepeda-Gómez, Sergio

doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy009.247

Cited by 2 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 112 remaining records, 98 records were further excluded after the titles and abstract were reviewed. Finally, 8 studies (1 abstract ( 52 ) and 7 full-text articles) involving 1,366 patients published between 2011 and 2019 were included.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All but one ( 52 ) of the studies were conducted in Japan. Five of the 8 studies involved gastroscopes, while the patients in the other 3 studies ( 47 , 52 , 53 ) underwent a colonoscopy. The sample sizes varied from 24 to 611 patients, and the age of participants ranged from 22 to 94 years.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three doses were used: 80, 160, and 320 mg. The interventions used in the control group included a placebo (n = 6), liquid simethicone (n = 1) ( 52 ) and CO 2 /air (n = 1) ( 53 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The overall quality of the included studies was rated as high because a large proportion displayed a low risk of bias (47/56). The major potential factor contributing to the risk of bias was attributed on 1 study ( 52 ) because it is an abstract that provides limited information for the risk assessment, as shown in Figure 2 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All but one of the included studies ( 56 ) used PNP and PNMP to evaluate gastrointestinal peristalsis. Five studies ( 11 , 47 , 52 , 53 , 57 ) reported the PNP, while 6 studies ( 11 , 45 – 47 , 53 , 57 ) described the PNMP. Because mild peristalsis was considered tolerable and had little effect on the operative visual field, PNMP was also employed to compare the effects of L-menthol and the control.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

L-Menthol for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Qin

Chen

et al. 2020

Clin Transl Gastroenterol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION: In randomized controlled trials, L-menthol inhibits gastrointestinal peristalsis during endoscopy. Our goal was to quantitatively synthesize the available evidence to evaluate the efficacy and safety of L-menthol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: We comprehensively searched for relevant studies published up to January 2020 in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. The main outcomes consisted of the proportion of no peristalsis, proportion of no or mild peristalsis, adenoma detection rate, and adverse events. RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials analyzing 1,366 subjects were included. According to the pooled data, L-menthol significantly improved the proportion of no peristalsis (odds ratio [OR] = 6.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.94–8.57, P < 0.00001), and the proportion of no or mild peristalsis (OR = 7.89, 95% CI = 5.03–12.39, P < 0.00001) compared with the placebo, whereas it was not associated with an improvement in the adenoma detection rate (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.54–1.99, P = 0.92). Adverse events did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 0.75–2.59, P = 0.29). DISCUSSION: The findings of this study support the use of L-menthol to suppress gastrointestinal peristalsis during endoscopic procedure.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three doses were used: 80, 160, and 320 mg. The interventions used in the control group included a placebo (n = 6), liquid simethicone (n = 1) ( 52 ) and CO 2 /air (n = 1) ( 53 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%