NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.
Oral Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Colorectal Surgery
Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 128
Investigators: Issa J Dahabreh, MD, MS, Dale W Steele, MD, MS, Nishit Shah, MD, and Thomas A Trikalinos, MD, PhD.
Author Information and AffiliationsStructured Abstract
Background:
Oral mechanical bowel preparation (OMBP) is often prescribed preoperatively for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.
Objectives:
We conducted a systematic review to summarize the evidence on the comparative effectiveness (prevention of surgical complications) and safety (harms) of OMBP versus no preparation, OMBP versus enema only, and among different OMBP strategies.
Data sources:
We searched MEDLINE®, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE™, and CINAHL® without any language restriction (last search on September 6, 2013). We also searched the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Web site (last search on May 17, 2013). We supplemented searches by asking technical experts and perusing reference lists for additional citations.
Study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions:
We included English-language full-text reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs; ≥10 patients per arm), and nonrandomized comparative studies (NRCSs; ≥100 patients per arm) of OMBP strategies in adults or children undergoing elective colon or rectal surgery. For harms we also included cohort studies of ≥200 participants. Eligible comparative studies reported on predetermined clinical outcomes, including overall mortality, infectious outcomes, anastomotic leakage; health system and resource utilization outcomes such as readmissions after surgery or length of stay; and patient-centered outcomes such as patient satisfaction and quality of life.
Study appraisal and synthesis methods:
A single investigator extracted data from each study; a second investigator verified quantitative results and intervention descriptions. We assessed the risk of bias for each outcome and the strength of the evidence following the processes described in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality “Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews.” We synthesized results qualitatively, and performed Bayesian pairwise and network meta-analyses. Models accounted for between-study heterogeneity.
Results:
Sixty unique studies (in 65 publications) were included: 44 RCTs, 10 NRCSs, and 6 single-group cohorts; 58 studies were included in main analyses (1 retracted publication and 1 possible duplicate were excluded). Of those, 18 RCTs were included in meta-analyses comparing OMBP versus enema or no preparation for the following outcomes: overall mortality, anastomotic leakage, wound infection, peritonitis, surgical site infection, and reoperation. Credible intervals of the summary odds ratio included the null value of 1.0 (no difference) for comparisons of OMBP versus no preparation or enema for all outcomes. When comparing OMBP to no preparation, credible intervals did not exclude modest (e.g., 30-50%) effects on overall mortality, anastomotic leakage, wound infection, or peritonitis in either direction. For all other comparisons, credible intervals did not exclude even larger effects. Results were robust to extensive sensitivity analyses. Twenty-four RCTs comparing alternative active OMBP strategies (including 1 RCT comparing inpatient vs. outpatient preparation) assessed highly diverse outcomes and most pertained to interventions that are no longer in clinical use. Evidence on the adverse events of OMBP was too poorly reported to allow definitive conclusions.
Limitations:
The evidence regarding OMBP for colorectal surgery is limited in the following ways: (1) most studies enrolled small numbers of patients and reported low event rates for major clinical events; (2) studies provided limited or no information for important clinical subgroups, particularly those defined by anatomic location of surgery (colon vs. rectal surgery) and the type of surgical procedure performed (e.g., open vs. laparoscopic surgery); (3) studies comparing alternative active OMBP strategies used a large number of diverse preparation regimes and reported results for heterogeneous, often poorly defined, outcomes; (4) nonrandomized trials, and particularly observational studies, could not effectively supplement the results of randomized trials because of shortcomings in their design and analysis (e.g., diversity of outcomes and suboptimal confounding control).
Conclusions:
We found weak evidence suggesting that OMBP has similar effectiveness as no preparation with respect to all-cause mortality, anastomotic leakage, wound infection, and peritonitis for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. However, the evidence base was too weak to confidently exclude either modest benefit or modest harm. Evidence for other outcomes and comparisons was insufficient to draw definitive conclusions. The effectiveness of alternative active OMBP strategies could not be assessed because the studies compared interventions that are no longer used. Data on harms were also too sparse for analysis. Therefore, there is a clear need for new comparative studies (both randomized and nonrandomized) of the currently used OMBP strategies.
The PROSPERO registration number of the protocol of this review is CRD42013004381.
Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Executive Summary
- Background
- Methods
- Results
- Key Question 1
- Ability To Evaluate the Effects of OMBP Separately by Anatomic Location
- Comparisons of OMBP Versus No OMBP
- Comparisons of Alternative Active OMBP Strategies
- Comparisons of Inpatient Versus Outpatient OMBP
- Key Question 2a
- Comparisons of OMBP Versus No OMBP
- Comparisons of Alternative Active OMBP Strategies
- Comparisons of Inpatient Versus Outpatient OMBP
- Key Question 2b
- Discussion
- References
- Appendix A Search Strategy
- Appendix B List of Excluded Studies by Reason for Exclusion
- Appendix C Sensitivity Analysis for Pairwise Contrasts Using Bayesian Methods (Sensitivity to Study Selection)
- Appendix D Sensitivity Analysis for Pairwise Contrasts Using Bayesian Methods (Alternative Prior Specification)
- Appendix E Sensitivity Analysis for Pairwise Contrasts Using Frequentist Methods (No Prior Specification)
- Appendix F Structural Sensitivity Analysis for Network Meta-Analysis (4-Node Network Structure)
- Appendix G Ongoing Studies
Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services1, Contract No. 290-2012-00012-I. Prepared by: Brown University Evidence-based Practice Center, Providence, RI
Suggested citation:
Dahabreh IJ, Steele DW, Shah N, Trikalinos TA. Oral Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Colorectal Surgery. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 128. (Prepared by the Brown University Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2012-00012-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 14-EHC018-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; April 2014. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.
This report is based on research conducted by the Brown University Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2012-00012-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.
This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.
This report may periodically be assessed for the urgency to update. If an assessment is done, the resulting surveillance report describing the methodology and findings will be found on the Effective Health Care Program Web site at: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov. Search on the title of the report.
None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.
- 1
540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www
.ahrq.gov
- Review Oral Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Colorectal Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.[Dis Colon Rectum. 2015]Review Oral Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Colorectal Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Dahabreh IJ, Steele DW, Shah N, Trikalinos TA. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015 Jul; 58(7):698-707.
- Review Low-Dose Aspirin for the Prevention of Morbidity and Mortality From Preeclampsia: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force[ 2014]Review Low-Dose Aspirin for the Prevention of Morbidity and Mortality From Preeclampsia: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task ForceHenderson JT, Whitlock EP, O'Conner E, Senger CA, Thompson JH, Rowland MG. 2014 Apr
- Review Diagnosis of Right Lower Quadrant Pain and Suspected Acute Appendicitis[ 2015]Review Diagnosis of Right Lower Quadrant Pain and Suspected Acute AppendicitisDahabreh IJ, Adam GP, Halladay CW, Steele DW, Daiello LA, Wieland LS, Zgodic A, Smith BT, Herliczek TW, Shah N, et al. 2015 Dec
- Review Aspirin Use in Adults: Cancer, All-Cause Mortality, and Harms: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force[ 2015]Review Aspirin Use in Adults: Cancer, All-Cause Mortality, and Harms: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task ForceWhitlock EP, Williams SB, Burda BU, Feightner A, Beil T. 2015 Sep
- Review Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery.[Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011]Review Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery.Güenaga KF, Matos D, Wille-Jørgensen P. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Sep 7; 2011(9):CD001544. Epub 2011 Sep 7.
- Oral Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Colorectal SurgeryOral Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Colorectal Surgery
- Emerging Approaches to Diagnosis and Treatment of Non–Muscle-Invasive Bladder Ca...Emerging Approaches to Diagnosis and Treatment of Non–Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer
- Enabling Health Care Decisionmaking Through Clinical Decision Support and Knowle...Enabling Health Care Decisionmaking Through Clinical Decision Support and Knowledge Management
- Communication and Dissemination Strategies to Facilitate the Use of Health-Relat...Communication and Dissemination Strategies to Facilitate the Use of Health-Related Evidence
- Results—Key Question 3: Communicating Uncertainty - Communication and Disseminat...Results—Key Question 3: Communicating Uncertainty - Communication and Dissemination Strategies to Facilitate the Use of Health-Related Evidence
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...