Colon PolypCEBuSNCT04378088
The Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS); Validation Study
An observational study of Colon Polyp, run by Portuguese Oncology Institute, Coimbra at 1 site in Portugal.
Trial summary
Colonoscopy is currently accepted as the gold standard in screening, surveillance and prevention for colorectal cancer (CRC), and therefore, its quality is a major priority. The quality of colonoscopy is greatly dependent on the quality of the bowel preparation, which can be limited by stool, foam, bubbles and other… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Colon Polyp
- What is being tested?
- Validation of CEBuS
- How many people
- 24 participants
- Where
- 1 sitePortugal
- Study dates
- 1 Oct 2019to 14 May 2020
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Were selected for the study 23 observers - 10 experts and 13 in-training/young specialists endoscopists from six European countries (Portugal, France, Italy, Romania, Poland and Slovakia).
Who may be able to join
- For the expert group: at least 15 years of regular practice in colonoscopy
- For the trainee group: 5 years or less in the practice of colonoscopy
Who cannot join
- Non endoscopist and if out of the experience standards required.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Colonoscopy is currently accepted as the gold standard in screening, surveillance and prevention for colorectal cancer (CRC), and therefore, its quality is a major priority.
The quality of colonoscopy is greatly dependent on the quality of the bowel preparation, which can be limited by stool, foam, bubbles and other debris. In fact, colonic bubbles are described in 30 to 40% of colonoscopies, possibly undermining the quality of the exam, impairing the endoscopists view, demanding the further use of water or simethicone and eventually increasing fatigue and costs, while diminishing diagnostic accuracy.
Although previous attempts, to date no endoscopic scale is validated regarding the presence of bubbles and most widely accepted and already validated scales do not include the presence or absence of bubbles in their definition, leading to the use of different home-made scales in randomized trials and impairing any solid meta-analysis conclusion. As so, the goal of this study is to develop and validate a new colonic bubble score (Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale - CEBuS).
Read the detailed description
Colonoscopy bowel preparation quality is a major concern since inadequate bowel preparation can reach levels as high as 30% which lead to several guidelines in this area, with the recent recommendation of at least 90% of good bowel preparations for all colonoscopies. In fact colonic mucosal visualization can be limited by residual stool, bubbles, bile and other debris increasing the risk of missing lesions.
Around 30 to 40% of the exams can have bubbles increasing the risk of missing lesions and in the other hand increasing the time of the exam, generating more fatigue in the endoscopist and increasing the costs.
The influence of colon bubbles in bowel preparation and strategies to solve them, for example with the use of simethicone in the bowel preparation, were addresses in recent studies, summarized in a 2018 meta-analysis recommending the use of simethicone in the bowel preparation scheme.
Current recommendations advise the use of validated scales to evaluate bowel preparation quality, but the three major validated scales, Boston, Ottawa and Aronchick, does not address the problem of graduation of colonic bubbles and possible actions to undertake regarding the severity of the bubbles concentration. The advent of multiple randomized trials addressing the use of simethicone in the bowel preparation to reduce or eliminate bubble formation lead to attempts to design scales to graduate the concentration of bubbles in the colon.
To date suggested scales are heterogeneous regarding the graduation (3 to 4 levels), defining criteria for each level with some based on percentage of colonic circumference obscured by bubbles to the amount of bubbles that could lead to miss a polyp of 5 or 10 millimetres.Two recently published studies on the influence of simethicone on bowel preparation tried to validate a colonic bubble scale, based on previous suggested and non-validated scales, although with only fair to moderate inter-observer variability.
Therefore, the main goal of this project is to build and validate a comprehensive scale to graduate bubbles in the colon, assessing the inter- and intra-observer reliability of the scale. As a secondary objective, to determine the clinical attitude more frequent for each grade of the bubbles scale, among experts and residents.
Aims: Build and validate a new colonic bubble score (Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale - CEBuS).
- Conditions
- Colon Polyp
- Being tested
- Validation of CEBuS
- Keywords
- Colonoscopy, Quality, Bowel, Preparation
- Medical subject headings
- Colonic Polyps
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Validation of CEBuSOther
Validation of a new score for bubbles in the colon.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Group 1 - experts | Evaluation of 15 images for each of the proposed 3 grade scale (45 images in total), randomly distributed to validate de scale; images will be assessed twice by the participants with a two-week interval in both study phases (the random distribution will vary between both evaluations).
Together with the assessment of each image the participant is invited to choose one of possible three clinical actions (do nothing, wash with water and wash with simethicone) Receives: Other: Validation of CEBuS | |
| Group 2 - mix experts/trainee | If intra and interobserver rates in group 1 are >0.7 proceed to group 2 evaluation with the same intervention.
Evaluation of 15 images for each of the proposed 3 grade scale (45 images in total), randomly distributed to validate de scale; images will be assessed twice by the participants with a two-week interval in both study phases (the random distribution will vary between both evaluations).
Together with the assessment of each image the participant is invited to choose one of possible three clinical actions (do nothing, wash with water and wash with simethicone) Receives: Other: Validation of CEBuS |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Reliability and reproducibility validation of the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS)
Evaluate the Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Fleiss kappa test
The Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS) was designed with a 3 grades scale:
CEBuS-0 - no or minimal amount of bubbles, covering less than 5% of the surface, not relevant for adequate mucosa visibility (better outcome) CEBuS-1 - moderate amount of bubbles, covering between 5% and 50% of the surface, affecting mucosa visibility and requiring additional time for removal CEBuS-2 - severe amount of bubbles, covering more than 50% of the surface, obscuring mucosa visibility and requiring additional time for removal (worse outcome)
Measured: 1 month
Secondary outcomes (2)
Evaluation of the clinical attitude
Evaluated by the Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Fleiss kappa test
Measured: 1 month
Influence of experience in the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS)
Evaluated by the Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Fleiss kappa test
The Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS) was designed with a 3 grades scale:
CEBuS-0 - no or minimal amount of bubbles, covering less than 5% of the surface, not relevant for adequate mucosa visibility (better outcome) CEBuS-1 - moderate amount of bubbles, covering between 5% and 50% of the surface, affecting mucosa visibility and requiring additional time for removal CEBuS-2 - severe amount of bubbles, covering more than 50% of the surface, obscuring mucosa visibility and requiring additional time for removal (worse outcome)
Measured: 1 month
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted7 May 2020
- Study start1 Oct 2019
- Primary completion30 Mar 2020
- Study completion14 May 2020
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (14)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Colon PolypStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Enrolment
- 24 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Portuguese Oncology Institute, Coimbra
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Filipe Taveira, Portuguese Oncology Institute, Coimbra
- Investigators
- Filipe Taveira, MD, Principal investigator, Gastroenterology Department of Portuguese Oncology Institute of Coimbra
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04378088
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- PortugueseOIC 005
- Acronym
- CEBuS
- Status last verified
- May 2020
- First submitted
- 4 May 2020
- Last updated
- 15 May 2020
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Hassan C, Fuccio L, Bruno M, Pagano N, Spada C, Carrara S, Giordanino C, Rondonotti E, Curcio G, Dulbecco P, Fabbri C, Della Casa D, Maiero S, Simone A, Iacopini F, Feliciangeli G, Manes G, Rinaldi A, Zullo A, Rogai F, Repici A. A predictive model identifies patients most likely to have inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012 May;10(5):501-6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2011.12.037. Epub 2012 Jan 10.
PubMed 22239959Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M, Bretthauer M, Rees CJ, Dekker E, Hoff G, Jover R, Suchanek S, Ferlitsch M, Anderson J, Roesch T, Hultcranz R, Racz I, Kuipers EJ, Garborg K, East JE, Rupinski M, Seip B, Bennett C, Senore C, Minozzi S, Bisschops R, Domagk D, Valori R, Spada C, Hassan C, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Rutter MD. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy. 2017 Apr;49(4):378-397. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-103411. Epub 2017 Mar 7.
PubMed 28268235Yoo IK, Jeen YT, Kang SH, Lee JH, Kim SH, Lee JM, Choi HS, Kim ES, Keum B, Chun HJ, Lee HS, Kim CD. Improving of bowel cleansing effect for polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid using simethicone: A randomized controlled trial. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Jul;95(28):e4163. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004163.
PubMed 27428209Matro R, Tupchong K, Daskalakis C, Gordon V, Katz L, Kastenberg D. The effect on colon visualization during colonoscopy of the addition of simethicone to polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution: a randomized single-blind study. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2012 Nov 29;3(11):e26. doi: 10.1038/ctg.2012.16.
PubMed 23238113Pan P, Zhao SB, Li BH, Meng QQ, Yao J, Wang D, Li ZS, Bai Y. Effect of supplemental simethicone for bowel preparation on adenoma detection during colonoscopy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Feb;34(2):314-320. doi: 10.1111/jgh.14401. Epub 2018 Aug 27.
PubMed 30069899Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Oct;72(4):686-92. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.06.068.
PubMed 20883845Rostom A, Jolicoeur E. Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Apr;59(4):482-6. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(03)02875-x.
PubMed 15044882Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH, Dufrayne F, Bergman G. A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000 Sep;52(3):346-52. doi: 10.1067/mge.2000.108480.
PubMed 10968848Spada C, Cesaro P, Bazzoli F, Saracco GM, Cipolletta L, Buri L, Crosta C, Petruzziello L, Ceroni L, Fuccio L, Giordanino C, Elia C, Rotondano G, Bianco MA, Simeth C, Consalvo D, De Roberto G, Fiori G, Campanale M, Costamagna G. Evaluation of Clensia(R), a new low-volume PEG bowel preparation in colonoscopy: Multicentre randomized controlled trial versus 4L PEG. Dig Liver Dis. 2017 Jun;49(6):651-656. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2017.01.167. Epub 2017 Feb 3.
PubMed 28233684Repici A, Cestari R, Annese V, Biscaglia G, Vitetta E, Minelli L, Trallori G, Orselli S, Andriulli A, Hassan C. Randomised clinical trial: low-volume bowel preparation for colonoscopy - a comparison between two different PEG-based formulations. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012 Oct;36(8):717-24. doi: 10.1111/apt.12026. Epub 2012 Aug 28.
PubMed 22924336Guo R, Wang YJ, Liu M, Ge J, Zhang LY, Ma L, Huang WY, Zhai HH. The effect of quality of segmental bowel preparation on adenoma detection rate. BMC Gastroenterol. 2019 Jul 8;19(1):119. doi: 10.1186/s12876-019-1019-8.
PubMed 31286888Zhang S, Zheng D, Wang J, Wu J, Lei P, Luo Q, Wang L, Zhang B, Wang H, Cui Y, Chen M. Simethicone improves bowel cleansing with low-volume polyethylene glycol: a multicenter randomized trial. Endoscopy. 2018 Apr;50(4):412-422. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-121337. Epub 2017 Nov 13.
PubMed 29132175Rishi M, Kaur J, Ulanja M, Manasewitsch N, Svendsen M, Abdalla A, Vemala S, Kewanyama J, Singh K, Singh N, Gullapalli N, Osgard E. Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial evaluating simethicone pretreatment with bowel preparation during colonoscopy. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Jun 16;11(6):413-423. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v11.i6.413.
PubMed 31236194Moraveji S, Casner N, Bashashati M, Garcia C, Dwivedi A, Zuckerman MJ, Carrion A, Ladd AM. The role of oral simethicone on the adenoma detection rate and other quality indicators of screening colonoscopy: a randomized, controlled, observer-blinded clinical trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Jul;90(1):141-149. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.03.018. Epub 2019 Mar 26.
PubMed 30926430
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 15 May 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS); Validation Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04378088
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CEBuS / PortugueseOIC 005
- Conditions
- Colon Polyp
- Keywords
- Colonoscopy, Quality, Bowel, Preparation
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 24 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Portuguese Oncology Institute, CoimbraUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Oct 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Mar 2020 (actual)
- Study completion
- 14 May 2020 (actual)
- First posted
- 7 May 2020 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Colonoscopy is currently accepted as the gold standard in screening, surveillance and prevention for colorectal cancer (CRC), and therefore, its quality is a major priority.
The quality of colonoscopy is greatly dependent on the quality of the bowel preparation, which can be limited by stool, foam, bubbles and other debris. In fact, colonic bubbles are described in 30 to 40% of colonoscopies, possibly undermining the quality of the exam, impairing the endoscopists view, demanding the further use of water or simethicone and eventually increasing fatigue and costs, while diminishing diagnostic accuracy.
Although previous attempts, to date no endoscopic scale is validated regarding the presence of bubbles and most widely accepted and already validated scales do not include the presence or absence of bubbles in their definition, leading to the use of different home-made scales in randomized trials and impairing any solid meta-analysis conclusion. As so, the goal of this study is to develop and validate a new colonic bubble score (Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale - CEBuS).
Detailed description
Colonoscopy bowel preparation quality is a major concern since inadequate bowel preparation can reach levels as high as 30% which lead to several guidelines in this area, with the recent recommendation of at least 90% of good bowel preparations for all colonoscopies. In fact colonic mucosal visualization can be limited by residual stool, bubbles, bile and other debris increasing the risk of missing lesions.
Around 30 to 40% of the exams can have bubbles increasing the risk of missing lesions and in the other hand increasing the time of the exam, generating more fatigue in the endoscopist and increasing the costs.
The influence of colon bubbles in bowel preparation and strategies to solve them, for example with the use of simethicone in the bowel preparation, were addresses in recent studies, summarized in a 2018 meta-analysis recommending the use of simethicone in the bowel preparation scheme.
Current recommendations advise the use of validated scales to evaluate bowel preparation quality, but the three major validated scales, Boston, Ottawa and Aronchick, does not address the problem of graduation of colonic bubbles and possible actions to undertake regarding the severity of the bubbles concentration. The advent of multiple randomized trials addressing the use of simethicone in the bowel preparation to reduce or eliminate bubble formation lead to attempts to design scales to graduate the concentration of bubbles in the colon.
To date suggested scales are heterogeneous regarding the graduation (3 to 4 levels), defining criteria for each level with some based on percentage of colonic circumference obscured by bubbles to the amount of bubbles that could lead to miss a polyp of 5 or 10 millimetres.Two recently published studies on the influence of simethicone on bowel preparation tried to validate a colonic bubble scale, based on previous suggested and non-validated scales, although with only fair to moderate inter-observer variability.
Therefore, the main goal of this project is to build and validate a comprehensive scale to graduate bubbles in the colon, assessing the inter- and intra-observer reliability of the scale. As a secondary objective, to determine the clinical attitude more frequent for each grade of the bubbles scale, among experts and residents.
Aims: Build and validate a new colonic bubble score (Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale - CEBuS).
Study design
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Group 1 - experts | – | Other: Validation of CEBuSEvaluation of 15 images for each of the proposed 3 grade scale (45 images in total), randomly distributed to validate de scale; images will be assessed twice by the participants with a two-week interval in both study phases (the random distribution will vary between both evaluations). Together with the assessment of each image the participant is invited to choose one of possible three clinical actions (do nothing, wash with water and wash with simethicone) |
| Group 2 - mix experts/trainee | – | Other: Validation of CEBuSIf intra and interobserver rates in group 1 are >0.7 proceed to group 2 evaluation with the same intervention. Evaluation of 15 images for each of the proposed 3 grade scale (45 images in total), randomly distributed to validate de scale; images will be assessed twice by the participants with a two-week interval in both study phases (the random distribution will vary between both evaluations). Together with the assessment of each image the participant is invited to choose one of possible three clinical actions (do nothing, wash with water and wash with simethicone) |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Were selected for the study 23 observers - 10 experts and 13 in-training/young specialists endoscopists from six European countries (Portugal, France, Italy, Romania, Poland and Slovakia).
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- For the expert group: at least 15 years of regular practice in colonoscopy
- For the trainee group: 5 years or less in the practice of colonoscopy
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Non endoscopist and if out of the experience standards required.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Validation of CEBuSValidation of a new score for bubbles in the colon. | Other | Group 1 - experts, Group 2 - mix experts/trainee |
Primary outcome
Reliability and reproducibility validation of the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS)
Time frame: 1 month
Evaluate the Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Fleiss kappa test The Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS) was designed with a 3 grades scale: CEBuS-0 - no or minimal amount of bubbles, covering less than 5% of the surface, not relevant for adequate mucosa visibility (better outcome) CEBuS-1 - moderate amount of bubbles, covering between 5% and 50% of the surface, affecting mucosa visibility and requiring additional time for removal CEBuS-2 - severe amount of bubbles, covering more than 50% of the surface, obscuring mucosa visibility and requiring additional time for removal (worse outcome)
2 secondary outcomes
Evaluation of the clinical attitude
Time frame: 1 month
Influence of experience in the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS)
Time frame: 1 month
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 15 May 2020.
- Background: PubMed 22239959Hassan C, Fuccio L, Bruno M, Pagano N, Spada C, Carrara S, Giordanino C, Rondonotti E, Curcio G, Dulbecco P, Fabbri C, Della Casa D, Maiero S, Simone A, Iacopini F, Feliciangeli G, Manes G, Rinaldi A, Zullo A, Rogai F, Repici A. A predictive model identifies patients most likely to have inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012 May;10(5):501-6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2011.12.037. Epub 2012 Jan 10.
- Background: PubMed 28268235Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M, Bretthauer M, Rees CJ, Dekker E, Hoff G, Jover R, Suchanek S, Ferlitsch M, Anderson J, Roesch T, Hultcranz R, Racz I, Kuipers EJ, Garborg K, East JE, Rupinski M, Seip B, Bennett C, Senore C, Minozzi S, Bisschops R, Domagk D, Valori R, Spada C, Hassan C, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Rutter MD. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy. 2017 Apr;49(4):378-397. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-103411. Epub 2017 Mar 7.
- Background: PubMed 27428209Yoo IK, Jeen YT, Kang SH, Lee JH, Kim SH, Lee JM, Choi HS, Kim ES, Keum B, Chun HJ, Lee HS, Kim CD. Improving of bowel cleansing effect for polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid using simethicone: A randomized controlled trial. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Jul;95(28):e4163. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004163.
- Background: PubMed 23238113Matro R, Tupchong K, Daskalakis C, Gordon V, Katz L, Kastenberg D. The effect on colon visualization during colonoscopy of the addition of simethicone to polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution: a randomized single-blind study. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2012 Nov 29;3(11):e26. doi: 10.1038/ctg.2012.16.
- Background: PubMed 30069899Pan P, Zhao SB, Li BH, Meng QQ, Yao J, Wang D, Li ZS, Bai Y. Effect of supplemental simethicone for bowel preparation on adenoma detection during colonoscopy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Feb;34(2):314-320. doi: 10.1111/jgh.14401. Epub 2018 Aug 27.
- Background: PubMed 20883845Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Oct;72(4):686-92. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.06.068.
- Background: PubMed 15044882Rostom A, Jolicoeur E. Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Apr;59(4):482-6. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(03)02875-x.
- Background: PubMed 10968848Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH, Dufrayne F, Bergman G. A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000 Sep;52(3):346-52. doi: 10.1067/mge.2000.108480.
- Background: PubMed 28233684Spada C, Cesaro P, Bazzoli F, Saracco GM, Cipolletta L, Buri L, Crosta C, Petruzziello L, Ceroni L, Fuccio L, Giordanino C, Elia C, Rotondano G, Bianco MA, Simeth C, Consalvo D, De Roberto G, Fiori G, Campanale M, Costamagna G. Evaluation of Clensia(R), a new low-volume PEG bowel preparation in colonoscopy: Multicentre randomized controlled trial versus 4L PEG. Dig Liver Dis. 2017 Jun;49(6):651-656. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2017.01.167. Epub 2017 Feb 3.
- Background: PubMed 22924336Repici A, Cestari R, Annese V, Biscaglia G, Vitetta E, Minelli L, Trallori G, Orselli S, Andriulli A, Hassan C. Randomised clinical trial: low-volume bowel preparation for colonoscopy - a comparison between two different PEG-based formulations. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012 Oct;36(8):717-24. doi: 10.1111/apt.12026. Epub 2012 Aug 28.
- Background: PubMed 31286888Guo R, Wang YJ, Liu M, Ge J, Zhang LY, Ma L, Huang WY, Zhai HH. The effect of quality of segmental bowel preparation on adenoma detection rate. BMC Gastroenterol. 2019 Jul 8;19(1):119. doi: 10.1186/s12876-019-1019-8.
- Background: PubMed 29132175Zhang S, Zheng D, Wang J, Wu J, Lei P, Luo Q, Wang L, Zhang B, Wang H, Cui Y, Chen M. Simethicone improves bowel cleansing with low-volume polyethylene glycol: a multicenter randomized trial. Endoscopy. 2018 Apr;50(4):412-422. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-121337. Epub 2017 Nov 13.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Colon Polyp
RecruitingObservational study
A Prospective Registry of Patients With Endoscopically Resected Malignant Colorectal Polyps (pT1 Colorectal Cancer)
Malignant Colorectal Polyp, Colorectal Cancer
Enrolling by invitation
Cold Snare Piecemeal Resection vs Cold Snare Endoscopic Mucosal Resection
Colon Polyp, Colon Adenoma
Enrolling by invitation
Six Versus Twelve Month Index Follow-up After Large Colon Polyp Resection
Colon Polyp, Adenoma
RecruitingPhase 1
Testing for Safety and Colorectal Cancer Preventive Effects of ONC201
Colorectal Adenomatous Polyp, Colorectal Carcinoma
Recruiting
Performance and Safety of MiWEndo-assisted Colonoscopy (MiWEndo II)
Colorectal Cancer, Colorectal Polyp
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Filipe Taveira, MD principal investigator
Gastroenterology Department of Portuguese Oncology Institute of Coimbra
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Colon Polyp, run by Portuguese Oncology Institute, Coimbra at 1 site in Portugal.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 15 May 2020. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Portugal. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Reliability and reproducibility validation of the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS) (time frame: 1 month). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04378088, which also lists 14 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 15 May 2020.