Home › Research › Vascular contributions
Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy
Ness RM, Manam R, Hoen H, Chalasani N.. The American journal of gastroenterology, 2001-06-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objective Inadequate preparation of the bowel for colonoscopy can result in both missed pathological lesions and cancelled procedures. We looked prospectively at the quality of colonic preparation and evaluated potential associations between specific patient characteristics and inadequate colonic preparation. Methods Data were gathered on consecutive patients presenting for colonoscopy who received either a polyethylene glycol lavage or oral sodium phosphate bowel preparation. Patient demographic and medical history information was gathered before scheduled colonoscopy. The endoscopist evaluated the preparation quality during the procedure. Complete data were gathered on 649 of 714 eligible patients (90.8%). Possible predictors of inadequate colonic preparation were analyzed using univariate statistics and multivariate logistic regression models. Results An inadequate colonic preparation was reported in 21.7% of observed colonoscopies. Only 18% of patients with an inadequate colonic preparation reported a failure to adequately follow preparation instructions. A later colonoscopy starting time, a reported failure to follow preparation instructions, inpatient status, a procedural indication of constipation, taking tricyclic antidepressants, male gender, and a history of cirrhosis, stroke or dementia were all independent predictors of an inadequate colon preparation (all p < 0.05). A procedural indication of previous polypectomy was a negative predictor of inadequate colonic preparation (p < 0.05). Conclusion Several patient characteristics were significantly associated with colonic preparation quality independent of preparation type, compliance with preparation instructions, and procedure starting time. This information may help to identify patients at an increased risk for inadequate colonic preparation for whom alternative preparation protocols would be appropriate.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Ness, R. M., Manam, R., Hoen, H., & Chalasani, N. (2001). Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The American journal of gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.03874.x
Vancouver
Ness RM, Manam R, Hoen H, Chalasani N. Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The American journal of gastroenterology. 2001. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.03874.x. PMID: 11419832.
BibTeX
@article{ness2001-11419832,
author = {Ness, R. M. and Manam, R. and Hoen, H. and Chalasani, N.},
title = {{Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy}},
journal = {The American journal of gastroenterology},
year = {2001},
doi = {10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.03874.x},
pmid = {11419832},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.03874.x}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Objective Inadequate preparation of the bowel for colonoscopy can result in both missed pathological lesions and cancelled procedures.
- Results An inadequate colonic preparation was reported in 21.7% of observed colonoscopies.
- Conclusion Several patient characteristics were significantly associated with colonic preparation quality independent of preparation type, compliance with preparation instructions, and procedure starting time.
- This information may help to identify patients at an increased risk for inadequate colonic preparation for whom alternative preparation protocols would be appropriate.
Study details
- Effect size90.8%; 21.7%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The American journal of gastroenterology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2001 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 11419832) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 26 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Vascular contributions
Also in Vascular contributions
53 studies in the library are filed under Vascular contributions with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Vascular contributions hub.