Optimizing bowel preparation regimens for colon capsule endoscopy: an umbrella review (overview of systematic reviews).

IF 1.2 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Pub Date : 2026-07-02 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1177/26317745261463059
Pablo Cortegoso Valdivia, Noemi Gualandi, Giuliano Francesco Bonura, Mauro Manno, Marco Pennazio, Ervin Toth, Jean-François Rey, Reena Sidhu, Anastasios Koulaouzidis
{"title":"Optimizing bowel preparation regimens for colon capsule endoscopy: an umbrella review (overview of systematic reviews).","authors":"Pablo Cortegoso Valdivia, Noemi Gualandi, Giuliano Francesco Bonura, Mauro Manno, Marco Pennazio, Ervin Toth, Jean-François Rey, Reena Sidhu, Anastasios Koulaouzidis","doi":"10.1177/26317745261463059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a minimally invasive alternative to colonoscopy, but its diagnostic performance depends entirely on adequate mucosal cleansing (adequate cleansing rate, ACR) and complete colonic transit (completion rate, CR). These requirements impose stringent preparation demands. Existing systematic reviews (SRs) show substantial heterogeneity in recommendations.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To identify optimal CCE preparation strategies.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Umbrella review (overview of SRs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive literature search was conducted through November 2025 for SRs and meta-analyses (MAs) assessing CCE bowel preparation regimens. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR2, and primary study overlap was quantified using the Corrected Covered Area (CCA). Outcomes included ACR and CR, stratified by preparation components.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen SRs (11 MAs) encompassing 102 primary studies (moderate overlap, CCA 8.59%) were included. Pooled ACR (72.5%-76.8%) and CR (79.8%-83.0%) remained below colonoscopy benchmarks. In inflammatory bowel disease, ACR varied widely (49%-98.5%) with no superior regimen. In the general population, low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG <4 L) yielded higher ACR (77.5%) than high-volume PEG (72.9%). Sodium phosphate (NaP) boosters outperformed PEG specifically for CR, with NaP + Gastrografin achieving the highest CR (93.1%). Castor oil improved excretion (OR 0.17 of incomplete CCE transit, 95% CI 0.09-0.32), and routine prokinetics improved CR compared with no use (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.13-3.05). Low-fiber diets provided better cleansing than clear liquids (ACR 78.5% vs 70.0%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Current CCE bowel preparation regimens demonstrate variable performance relative to targets, with no single intervention demonstrating unequivocal superiority over others in pairwise comparisons. Evidence supports optimizing performance via low-volume PEG, NaP or Gastrografin-based boosters, routine prokinetics, and a low-fiber diet. A universal regimen is unlikely to suit all patients, highlighting the need for personalized protocols. Standardized cleansing scores and AI-assisted assessment are critical to improving reproducibility and cost-effectiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":40947,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","volume":"19 ","pages":"26317745261463059"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13329003/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317745261463059","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a minimally invasive alternative to colonoscopy, but its diagnostic performance depends entirely on adequate mucosal cleansing (adequate cleansing rate, ACR) and complete colonic transit (completion rate, CR). These requirements impose stringent preparation demands. Existing systematic reviews (SRs) show substantial heterogeneity in recommendations.

Objectives: To identify optimal CCE preparation strategies.

Design: Umbrella review (overview of SRs).

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted through November 2025 for SRs and meta-analyses (MAs) assessing CCE bowel preparation regimens. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR2, and primary study overlap was quantified using the Corrected Covered Area (CCA). Outcomes included ACR and CR, stratified by preparation components.

Results: Fourteen SRs (11 MAs) encompassing 102 primary studies (moderate overlap, CCA 8.59%) were included. Pooled ACR (72.5%-76.8%) and CR (79.8%-83.0%) remained below colonoscopy benchmarks. In inflammatory bowel disease, ACR varied widely (49%-98.5%) with no superior regimen. In the general population, low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG <4 L) yielded higher ACR (77.5%) than high-volume PEG (72.9%). Sodium phosphate (NaP) boosters outperformed PEG specifically for CR, with NaP + Gastrografin achieving the highest CR (93.1%). Castor oil improved excretion (OR 0.17 of incomplete CCE transit, 95% CI 0.09-0.32), and routine prokinetics improved CR compared with no use (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.13-3.05). Low-fiber diets provided better cleansing than clear liquids (ACR 78.5% vs 70.0%).

Conclusion: Current CCE bowel preparation regimens demonstrate variable performance relative to targets, with no single intervention demonstrating unequivocal superiority over others in pairwise comparisons. Evidence supports optimizing performance via low-volume PEG, NaP or Gastrografin-based boosters, routine prokinetics, and a low-fiber diet. A universal regimen is unlikely to suit all patients, highlighting the need for personalized protocols. Standardized cleansing scores and AI-assisted assessment are critical to improving reproducibility and cost-effectiveness.

优化结肠胶囊内窥镜的肠道准备方案:总括性综述(系统综述)。
背景:结肠胶囊内镜(Colon capsule endoscopy, CCE)是结肠镜检查的一种微创替代方法,但其诊断效果完全取决于足够的粘膜清洁(enough cleansing rate, ACR)和完全的结肠运输(complete结肠transit,完成率,CR)。这些要求提出了严格的准备要求。现有的系统评价(SRs)显示建议存在很大的异质性。目的:确定最佳CCE制备策略。设计:伞形审查(SRs概述)。方法:到2025年11月,对评估CCE肠道准备方案的SRs和meta分析(MAs)进行了全面的文献检索。使用AMSTAR2评估方法学质量,并使用校正覆盖面积(CCA)对主要研究重叠进行量化。结果包括ACR和CR,按制剂成分分层。结果:纳入了14项SRs(11项MAs),包括102项主要研究(中度重叠,CCA为8.59%)。总ACR(72.5%-76.8%)和CR(79.8%-83.0%)仍低于结肠镜检查基准。在炎症性肠病中,ACR差异很大(49%-98.5%),没有更好的方案。结论:目前的CCE肠道准备方案相对于目标表现出不同的性能,在两两比较中没有单一干预显示出明确的优势。有证据支持通过小体积PEG、NaP或基于胃graf素的助推剂、常规促动力学和低纤维饮食来优化性能。通用方案不太可能适合所有患者,这突出了个性化方案的必要性。标准化清洗评分和人工智能辅助评估对于提高可重复性和成本效益至关重要。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书