Randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy: a scoping review.

IF 3.3 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY BMJ Open Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001129
Colin Sue-Chue-Lam, Matthew Castelo, Amina Benmessaoud, Teruko Kishibe, Diego Llovet, Christine Brezden-Masley, Amy Yx Yu, Jill Tinmouth, Nancy N Baxter
{"title":"Randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy: a scoping review.","authors":"Colin Sue-Chue-Lam,&nbsp;Matthew Castelo,&nbsp;Amina Benmessaoud,&nbsp;Teruko Kishibe,&nbsp;Diego Llovet,&nbsp;Christine Brezden-Masley,&nbsp;Amy Yx Yu,&nbsp;Jill Tinmouth,&nbsp;Nancy N Baxter","doi":"10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy may be effective at mitigating negative experiences and perceptions of the procedure, but research to characterise the extent and features of studies of these interventions is limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a scoping review searching multiple databases for peer-reviewed publications of randomised controlled trials conducted in adults investigating a non-pharmacological intervention to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy. Study characteristics were tabulated and summarised narratively and graphically.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We screened 5939 citations and 962 full texts, and included 245 publications from 39 countries published between 1992 and 2022. Of these, 80.8% were full publications and 19.2% were abstracts. Of the 41.9% of studies reporting funding sources, 11.4% were unfunded. The most common interventions were carbon dioxide and/or water insufflation methods (33.9%), complementary and alternative medicines (eg, acupuncture) (20.0%), and colonoscope technology (eg, magnetic scope guide) (21.6%). Pain was as an outcome across 82.0% of studies. Studies most often used a patient-reported outcome examining patient experience during the procedure (60.0%), but 42.9% of studies included an outcome without specifying the time that the patient experienced the outcome. Most intraprocedural patient-reported outcomes were measured retrospectively rather than contemporaneously, although studies varied in terms of when outcomes were assessed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Research on non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy is unevenly distributed across types of intervention and features high variation in study design and reporting, in particular around outcomes. Future research efforts into non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy should be directed at underinvestigated interventions and developing consensus-based guidelines for study design, with particular attention to how and when outcomes are experienced and measured.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>42020173906.</p>","PeriodicalId":9235,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Gastroenterology","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/02/03/bmjgast-2023-001129.PMC10255139.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001129","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: Non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy may be effective at mitigating negative experiences and perceptions of the procedure, but research to characterise the extent and features of studies of these interventions is limited.

Methods: We conducted a scoping review searching multiple databases for peer-reviewed publications of randomised controlled trials conducted in adults investigating a non-pharmacological intervention to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy. Study characteristics were tabulated and summarised narratively and graphically.

Results: We screened 5939 citations and 962 full texts, and included 245 publications from 39 countries published between 1992 and 2022. Of these, 80.8% were full publications and 19.2% were abstracts. Of the 41.9% of studies reporting funding sources, 11.4% were unfunded. The most common interventions were carbon dioxide and/or water insufflation methods (33.9%), complementary and alternative medicines (eg, acupuncture) (20.0%), and colonoscope technology (eg, magnetic scope guide) (21.6%). Pain was as an outcome across 82.0% of studies. Studies most often used a patient-reported outcome examining patient experience during the procedure (60.0%), but 42.9% of studies included an outcome without specifying the time that the patient experienced the outcome. Most intraprocedural patient-reported outcomes were measured retrospectively rather than contemporaneously, although studies varied in terms of when outcomes were assessed.

Conclusion: Research on non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy is unevenly distributed across types of intervention and features high variation in study design and reporting, in particular around outcomes. Future research efforts into non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy should be directed at underinvestigated interventions and developing consensus-based guidelines for study design, with particular attention to how and when outcomes are experienced and measured.

Prospero registration number: 42020173906.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非药物干预改善患者结肠镜检查结果的随机对照试验:范围回顾。
背景和目的:改善患者报告的结肠镜检查结果的非药物干预可能有效地减轻对该手术的负面体验和看法,但对这些干预研究的程度和特征的研究是有限的。方法:我们进行了一项范围综述,在多个数据库中检索同行评议的随机对照试验的出版物,这些试验在成人中进行,研究非药物干预以改善患者报告的结肠镜检查结果。将研究特征制成表格,并以叙述和图形方式进行总结。结果:我们筛选了5939篇引文和962篇全文,包括了1992年至2022年间出版的来自39个国家的245篇出版物。其中80.8%为全文,19.2%为摘要。在报告资金来源的41.9%的研究中,11.4%没有得到资助。最常见的干预措施是二氧化碳和/或水注入法(33.9%),补充和替代药物(如针灸)(20.0%)和结肠镜技术(如磁力镜引导)(21.6%)。在82.0%的研究中,疼痛被作为结果。研究最常使用患者报告的结果来检查患者在手术过程中的经历(60.0%),但42.9%的研究包括没有指定患者经历结果的时间的结果。大多数术中患者报告的结果是回顾性测量的,而不是同时测量的,尽管研究在评估结果的时间方面有所不同。结论:改善结肠镜检查患者报告结果的非药物干预研究在不同类型的干预中分布不均匀,研究设计和报告的差异很大,特别是在结果方面。未来对改善患者结肠镜检查结果的非药物干预措施的研究应针对未充分调查的干预措施,并制定基于共识的研究设计指南,特别注意如何以及何时体验和测量结果。普洛斯彼罗注册号:42020173906。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Open Gastroenterology
BMJ Open Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
3.20%
发文量
68
审稿时长
2 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open Gastroenterology is an online-only, peer-reviewed, open access gastroenterology journal, dedicated to publishing high-quality medical research from all disciplines and therapeutic areas of gastroenterology. It is the open access companion journal of Gut and is co-owned by the British Society of Gastroenterology. The journal publishes all research study types, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Publishing procedures are built around continuous publication, publishing research online as soon as the article is ready.
期刊最新文献
Predictors for colectomy in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Qualitative service evaluation of a multimodal pilot service for early detection of liver disease in high-risk groups: 'Alright My Liver?' Development of a nomogram for predicting pancreatic portal hypertension in patients with acute pancreatitis: a retrospective study. Exploring the feasibility of home-delivered capsule endoscopy with 5G support: innovations and carbon footprint insights. Mixed-method Irish study exploring the role of diet in IBD based on an online questionnaire and a patient panel opinion.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1