Telephone instructions improve the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of telephone instructions on the quality of bowel preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy. METHODS: Online English databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase) were screened for randomized controlled trials on telephone instructions regarding bowel preparation for colonoscopy from inception to April 15, 2022. After data extraction, the Review Manager software was used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials with 3,836 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The rate of adequate bowel preparation was significantly higher in the telephone group than in the control group. The pooled relative risk (RR) was 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.30, P < 0.01). The pooled mean difference (MD) for the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score was 1.32 (95% CI: 0.15-2.49, P < 0.05), and that for the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale score was -1.93 (95% CI: -2.35 to -1.51, P < 0.01). The polyp detection rate was significantly higher in the telephone group than in the control group (RR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.23-2.04, P < 0.01), whereas no significant difference was noted in the adenoma detection rate between the groups (RR = 1.37, 95% CI: 0.97-1.94, P = 0.08). CONCLUSION: Telephone instructions for patients undergoing colonoscopy significantly improved the quality of bowel preparation and increased polyp detection rate.
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 | 0.013 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".