4.6 Review

Castor Oil in Bowel Preparation Regimens for Colon Capsule Endoscopy: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 12, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12112795

关键词

colon capsule endoscopy; castor oil; bowel preparation; bowel cleansing; excretion rate; completion rate; colon cancer; polyps; colorectal cancer; meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This meta-analysis investigates the effect of adding castor oil to the bowel preparation regimen for colon capsule endoscopy. The results show that castor oil can improve the excretion rate, but it does not significantly impact colonic cleanliness. Further randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.
Completing colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) investigations rely on successful transit and acceptable bowel preparation quality. We investigated the effect of adding castor oil to the CCE bowel preparation regimen on the completion rate using a meta-analysis of existing literature. We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Included studies underwent quality assessment, and data for meta-analysis were extracted. Pooled estimates for excretion rate and acceptable bowel preparation rate were calculated. We identified 72 studies matching our search criteria, and six were included in the meta-analysis. Three of the studies had control groups, although two used historical cohorts. The pooled excretion rate (92%) was significantly higher in patients who received castor oil than in those who did not (73%). No significant difference in acceptable colonic cleanliness was observed. Castor oil has been used in a few studies as a booster for CCE. This meta-analysis shows the potential for this medication to improve excretion rates, and castor oil could be actively considered in conjunction with other emerging laxative regimens in CCE. Still, prospective randomized trials with appropriate control groups should be conducted before any conclusions can be drawn. Prospero ID: CRD42022338939.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据