Xin Yuan1,2, Hui Gao1,2, Cenqin Liu2,3, Weihong Wang2, Jiarong Xie2, Zhixin Zhang2, Lei Xu4. 1. School of Medicine, Ningbo University, Zhejiang, China. 2. Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, Zhejiang, China. 3. College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Zhejiang, China. 4. Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, Zhejiang, China. xulei22@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several models for predicting adequate bowel preparation are available but have never been externally validated. The aim of this study is to compare the available models in an independent population. METHODS: This study prospectively recruited 500 consecutive patients from August to December 2020 from the Endoscopy Center of a tertiary hospital. All patients underwent the same bowel preparation regimen. The discrimination of the prediction models was quantified with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and the 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each AUC. RESULTS: Finally, 461 patients were eligible for this study. A total of 110 (23.9%) patients were deemed to show inadequate bowel preparation during colonoscopy. There were significant differences between patients with and without adequate bowel preparation in terms of current hospitalization, procedure time, comorbidities (including diabetes and constipation), American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System score (ASA) ≥ 3, medication usage, and abdominal/pelvic surgery. The prediction models performed as follows: the Dik ≥ 2 model, the Dik ≥ 3 model, and the Antonio > 1.225 model had AUCs of 0.660 (95% CI = 0.604-0.717), 0.691 (95% CI = 0.646-0.733), and 0.645 (95% CI = 0.615-0.704), respectively. Comparison of the two prediction models showed no significant improvement (Antonio > 1.225 vs. Dik ≥ 3, 1.801, 95% CI = -0.004-0.096, P = 0.072). CONCLUSIONS: Both models are potentially helpful. However, it is necessary to develop or improve a prediction model to obtain a more suitable and detailed model. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, Number NCT04607161.
BACKGROUND: Several models for predicting adequate bowel preparation are available but have never been externally validated. The aim of this study is to compare the available models in an independent population. METHODS: This study prospectively recruited 500 consecutive patients from August to December 2020 from the Endoscopy Center of a tertiary hospital. All patients underwent the same bowel preparation regimen. The discrimination of the prediction models was quantified with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and the 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each AUC. RESULTS: Finally, 461 patients were eligible for this study. A total of 110 (23.9%) patients were deemed to show inadequate bowel preparation during colonoscopy. There were significant differences between patients with and without adequate bowel preparation in terms of current hospitalization, procedure time, comorbidities (including diabetes and constipation), American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System score (ASA) ≥ 3, medication usage, and abdominal/pelvic surgery. The prediction models performed as follows: the Dik ≥ 2 model, the Dik ≥ 3 model, and the Antonio > 1.225 model had AUCs of 0.660 (95% CI = 0.604-0.717), 0.691 (95% CI = 0.646-0.733), and 0.645 (95% CI = 0.615-0.704), respectively. Comparison of the two prediction models showed no significant improvement (Antonio > 1.225 vs. Dik ≥ 3, 1.801, 95% CI = -0.004-0.096, P = 0.072). CONCLUSIONS: Both models are potentially helpful. However, it is necessary to develop or improve a prediction model to obtain a more suitable and detailed model. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, Number NCT04607161.
Authors: Nastazja Dagny Pilonis; Marek Bugajski; Paulina Wieszczy; Robert Franczyk; Joanna Didkowska; Urszula Wojciechowska; Malgorzata Pisera; Maciej Rupinski; Jaroslaw Regula; Michal Filip Kaminski Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Antonio Z Gimeno-García; Jose Luis Baute; Goretti Hernandez; Dalia Morales; Carmen Delia Gonzalez-Pérez; David Nicolás-Pérez; Onofre Alarcon-Fernández; Alejandro Jiménez; Manuel Hernandez-Guerra; Rafael Romero; Inmaculada Alonso; Yanira Gonzalez; Zaida Adrian; Marta Carrillo; Laura Ramos; Enrique Quintero Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2017-03-10 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: George F Longstreth; W Grant Thompson; William D Chey; Lesley A Houghton; Fermin Mearin; Robin C Spiller Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Vincent K Dik; Leon M G Moons; Melek Hüyük; Peter van der Schaar; Wouter H de Vos Tot Nederveen Cappel; Pieter C J Ter Borg; Maarten A C Meijssen; Rob J T H Ouwendijk; Doris M Le Fèvre; Merijn Stouten; Onno van der Galiën; Theo J Hiemstra; Jan F Monkelbaan; Martijn G H van Oijen; Peter D Siersema Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-01-17 Impact factor: 9.427