S'abonner

Identifying the optimal bowel prep for small-bowel capsule endoscopy: a meta-review and umbrella meta-analysis - 28/01/26

Doi : 10.1016/j.gie.2025.11.005 
Ian Io Lei, MD 1, 2, , Pablo Cortegoso Valdivia, MD 3, 4, , Noemi Gualandi, MD 5, Kiara Mc Donnell, MD 6, Marco Pennazio, MD 7, Ramesh Arasaradnam, MD 1, 2, 8, Anastasios Koulaouzidis, MD 9, 10, 11, 12
1 Institute of Precision Diagnostics & Translational Medicine, University Hospital of Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK 
2 Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK 
3 Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, University Hospital of Parma, University of Parma, Parma, Italy 
4 Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark 
5 Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, AUSL Modena, Carpi, Italy 
6 University Division of Gastroenterology, City of Health and Science University Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy 
7 Leicester Cancer Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK 
8 School of Medicine, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK 
9 Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark 
10 Department of Medicine, Svendborg Sygehus, Svendborg, Denmark 
11 Department of Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark 
12 Department of Gastroenterology, Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland 

Corresponding author: Ian Io Lei, MD, Institute of Precision Diagnostics & Translational Medicine, University Hospital of Coventry and Warwickshire, Clifford Bridge Rd, Coventry CV2 2DX, UK. Xxxxx
Sous presse. Épreuves corrigées par l'auteur. Disponible en ligne depuis le Wednesday 28 January 2026

Abstract

Background and Aims

Small-bowel (SB) capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is a well-established diagnostic tool in GI medicine. However, the optimal bowel preparation strategy remains uncertain. Although multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses (MAs) have explored the efficacy of purgative regimens versus fasting-only protocols, their findings are often conflicting. This meta-review and umbrella MA aims to synthesize high-quality evidence and identify the most effective, safe, and standardized preparation approach for SBCE. The primary outcomes assessed were SB mucosal cleansing quality, diagnostic yield (DY), and procedure completion rate, comparing purgative regimens to fasting-only protocols. Secondary outcomes included SB transit time and the influence of preparation timing and fasting duration on procedural efficacy.

Methods

We performed a comprehensive systematic search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed to identify systematic reviews, with or without MA, that compared purgative versus fasting preparation regimens in adult patients undergoing SBCE. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using the (AMSTAR-2) A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Review 2 tool. To evaluate the overlap between reviews, we applied the corrected covered area method. The certainty of evidence was appraised according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Due to substantial primary study overlap between systematic reviews, we conducted an umbrella MA by extracting and synthesizing data from all the unique primary studies included within the systematic reviews using a random-effects model.

Results

Ten systematic reviews, comprising 53 unique primary studies, were identified, with a total of 9636 participants, 39 of which were included in the umbrella MA. Compared to fasting, purgative bowel preparation showed a significantly improved cleansing adequacy (risk ratio, RR = 1.24; 95% CI: 1.12–1.37), with polyethylene glycol (PEG) being the only laxative demonstrating a significant effect. Additionally, no difference in cleansing quality was observed between different volumes of PEG preparation. Regarding dosage timing, same-day dosing showed the greatest benefit in cleansing quality (RR = 1.75; 95% CI, 1.33-2.29), followed by postingestion regimens (RR = 1.59; 95% CI, 1.17-2.16). Purgatives offered marginal gains over fasting in DY (RR = 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.24) and completion rate (RR = 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.04), with a significant benefit seen in Crohn's disease-predominant studies (RR = 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20; I 2 statistic [a measure of heterogeneity] = 0%). Subgroup analysis again demonstrated a significant improvement in DY with same-day preparation (RR = 1.30; 95% CI, 1.07-1.57).

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that purgative bowel preparation, particularly with PEG, is superior to fasting alone in improving adequate SB cleansing and diagnostic accuracy. Notably, a same-day regimen significantly enhances both cleansing quality and DY, suggesting that the timing of administration is more critical than the laxative's dosage.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Abbreviations : AMSTAR-2, CCA, CCE, CE, CR, DY, ESGE, GRADE, IDA, I 2 , KPI, MA, NaP, OGIB, PEG, REML, RR, SB, SBCE, SBTT, SMD, SSBB


Plan


© 2025  American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Publié par Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Elsevier s'engage à rendre ses eBooks accessibles et à se conformer aux lois applicables. Compte tenu de notre vaste bibliothèque de titres, il existe des cas où rendre un livre électronique entièrement accessible présente des défis uniques et l'inclusion de fonctionnalités complètes pourrait transformer sa nature au point de ne plus servir son objectif principal ou d'entraîner un fardeau disproportionné pour l'éditeur. Par conséquent, l'accessibilité de cet eBook peut être limitée. Voir plus

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.