MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137138792 · doi:10.1038/ajg.2011.75

Development and Validation of a Novel Patient Educational Booklet to Enhance Colonoscopy Preparation

2011· article· en· W2137138792 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brennan Spiegel, Jennifer Talley, Paul Shekelle, Nikhil Agarwal, Bradley S. Snyder, Roger Bolus, Nicole Kurzbard, Michael Chan, Andrew Fu Wah Ho, Marc Kaneshiro, Kristina M. Cordasco, Hartley Cohen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColonoscopyOdds ratioRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalLogistic regressionProtocol (science)Bowel preparationIntention-to-treat analysisFamily medicinePhysical therapySurgeryInternal medicineColorectal cancerAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The success of colonoscopy depends on high-quality bowel preparation by patients; yet inadequate preparation is common. We developed and tested an educational booklet to improve bowel preparation quality. METHODS: We conducted patient cognitive interviews to identify knowledge and belief barriers to colonoscopy preparation. We used these interviews to create an educational booklet to enhance preparatory behaviors. We then prospectively randomized patients scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy at a VA Medical Center to receive usual instructions vs. the booklet before colonoscopy. Patients in both groups received standard pharmacy instructions for single-dose bowel preparation; the protocol did not specify which purgatives to prescribe. The primary outcome was preparation quality based on blinded ratings using the validated Ottawa score. We performed bivariate analyses to compare mean scores between groups using a t-test, and logistic regression to measure the booklet effect on preparation quality, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: A total of 436 patients were randomized between arms. In an intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome, mean Ottawa scores were superior in patients allocated to booklet vs. controls (P=0.03). An intention-to-treat analysis of the secondary outcome revealed a "good" preparation in 68 vs. 46% of booklet and control patients, respectively (P=0.054). In a per-protocol analysis limited to patients who actually received the booklet, preparation was good in 76 vs. 46% patients, respectively (P<0.00001). Regression analysis revealed that booklet receipt increased the odds of good preparation by 3.7 times (95% confidence interval=2.3-5.8). CONCLUSIONS: Provision of a novel educational booklet considerably improves preparation quality in patients receiving single-dose purgatives. The effect of the booklet on split-dose purgatives remains untested and will be evaluated in future research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations163
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207