Effects of a Personalized Smartphone App on Bowel Preparation Quality: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adequate bowel preparation is essential for the visualization of the colonic mucosa during colonoscopy. However, the rate of inadequate bowel preparation is still high, ranging from 18% to 35%; this may lead to a higher risk of missing clinically relevant lesions, procedural difficulties, prolonged procedural time, an increased number of interval colorectal carcinomas, and additional health care costs. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are to compare bowel preparation instructions provided via a personalized smartphone app (Prepit, Ferring B V) with regular written instructions for bowel preparation to improve bowel preparation quality and to evaluate patient satisfaction with the bowel preparation procedure. METHODS: Eligible patients scheduled for an outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to a smartphone app group or a control group. Both the groups received identical face-to-face education from a research physician, including instructions about the colonoscopy procedure, diet restrictions, and laxative intake. In addition, the control group received written information, whereas the smartphone app group was instructed to use the smartphone app instead of the written information for the actual steps of the bowel preparation schedule. All patients used bisacodyl and sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate as laxatives. The quality of bowel preparation was scored using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) by blinded endoscopists. Patient satisfaction was measured using the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire-18. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients were included in the smartphone app group and 86 in the control group. The mean total BBPS score was significantly higher in the smartphone app group (mean 8.3, SD 0.9) than in the control group (mean 7.9, SD 1.2; P=.03). The right colon showed a significantly higher bowel preparation score in the smartphone app group (mean 2.7, SD 0.5 vs mean 2.5, SD 0.6; P=.04). No significant differences were observed in segment scores for the mean transverse colon (mean 2.8, SD 0.4 vs mean 2.8, SD 0.4; P=.34) and left colon (mean 2.8, SD 0.4 vs mean 2.6, SD 0.5; P=.07). General patient satisfaction was high for the smartphone app group (mean 4.4, SD 0.7) but showed no significant difference when compared with the control group (mean 4.3, SD 0.8; P=.32). CONCLUSIONS: Our personalized smartphone app significantly improved bowel preparation quality compared with regular written instructions for bowel preparation. In particular, in the right colon, the BBPS score improved, which is of clinical relevance because the right colon is considered more difficult to clean and the polyp detection rate in the right colon improves with improvement of bowel cleansing of the right colon. No further improvement in patient satisfaction was observed compared with patients receiving regular written instructions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03677050; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03677050.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".