Testing the precautionary principle: a scoping review comparing potable tap and sterile water for irrigation in colonoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Most guidelines recommend use of sterile water in single-use plastic bottles for irrigation in colonoscopy, a recommendation extrapolated from case reports of infection linked to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Our objective was to identify evidence exploring the impact of tap versus sterile water in colonoscopy on patient, health care resource, and environmental outcomes. Methods: We performed a scoping review and included any study examining the effects of irrigation source during colonoscopy. A health information specialist searched Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception to March 2024 using Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies standards. Two reviewers performed screening and data extraction using a standardized form. We conducted a quantitative analysis of patient outcomes. Results: Of 335 identified articles, we included 3. All were prospective studies published between 1996 and 2002. Overall, 137 colonoscopies and 38 flexible sigmoidoscopies were reported. Two studies compared sterile versus tap water, with 7 of 118 (6%) and 35 of 327 (11%) positive water cultures, respectively. There were no clinical adverse events. One study compared tap water at warm versus room temperature and measured patient pain scores (2/10 and 4/10, respectively). Infectious complications were not reported. Conclusion: There is limited evidence to support either tap or sterile water in irrigation for colonoscopy, but potable tap water may be a safe choice and is environmentally and economically more beneficial than sterile water. In the context of the climate crisis and increasing economic health care burden, tap water in reusable bottles should be strongly considered for irrigation in colonoscopy. Registration: Open Science Framework Registry, https://osf.io/8dgck
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 | 0.118 | 0.341 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".