Educational video improves bowel preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unsatisfactory bowel preparation has been reported in 1/3 of colonoscopy cases, with lack of good bowel preparation knowledge being one of the major causes. Although still unclear, educational video is thought to be a good method of improving bowel preparation. METHODS: A systematic review of eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the educational video to control group among 1,977 patients was conducted. PubMed, Embase, Clinical Trials.gov, Cochrane Library, and reference lists were searched for relevant reported studies from inception until June 2019. Outcomes of interest included adequate bowel preparation, Ottawa scores, polyp detection, withdraw time, pain scores, and the anxiety state of patients. Besides random events meta-analyses, we also performed a sensitivity analysis to examine whether the results of the meta-analysis were robust. RESULTS: Compared with the conventional group, the educational video group had significantly higher incidence of adequate bowel preparation [overall risk ratio (RR) =1.20, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.25, P<0.001], lower total Ottawa scores [overall standard mean difference (SMD) =-0.66, 95% CI: -0.91, -0.42, P<0.001]. However, there was no statistical difference in polyp detection, and withdraw time between the educational video and conventional groups (P>0.05). In addition, there were no sufficient RCTs to compare the pain scores and anxiety state of patients between the two groups through meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings have demonstrated that educational video can improve bowel preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".