Table 3.
Studies investigating patient preparations
| Author & date | Study period | Country | Study design | Number of patients | Number of readers | MRI system | Comparison | Subjective image quality | Artifacts | Inter-observer agreement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Purysko et al. (2022) [50] | 2017–2018 | USA | Retrospective | 195 | 4 | 3 T | Enema + DR vs. enema vs. DR vs. no preparation | Enema + DR resulted in the highest overall image quality | No significant difference between groups | κ = 0.25–0.37 |
| Arnoldner et al. (2022) [48] | Unspecified | International | Prospective | 150 | 2 | 3 T | Enema + endorectal gel filling vs. no preparation | Enema + endorectal gel filling improved DWI and T2WI image quality and PI-QUAL scores | x | κ = 0.38–0.77 |
| Reischauer et al. (2021) [47] | 2017–2019 | Switzerland | Retrospective | 200 | 2 | 3 T | Enema vs. catheter | Enema resulted in the higher overall image quality | Enema had less susceptibility-related artifacts | κ = 0.920.95 |
| Schmidt et al. (2021) [49] | 2018–2020 | Switzerland | Retrospective | 180 | 2 | 3 T | HBB vs. enema vs. DR vs. combination of HBB, enema, and DR | Enema improved image quality of DWI and overall MRI | Enema reduced artifacts | ICC = 0.46 |
| Sathiadoss et al. (2021) [51] | 2019–2020 | Canada | Retrospective | 280 | 3 | 3 T | DR vs. enema vs. enema + DR vs. enema + DR + HBB vs. no preparation | Enema + DR resulted in the highest T2W and DWI image quality | Enema + DR resulted in the least DWI artifacts | κ = 0.15–0.78 |
| Coskun et al. (2020) [44] | 2016–2017 | USA | Retrospective | 117 | 2 | 3 T | Enema vs. no preparation | Enema reduced rectal gas but with only minor effects on overall image quality | No significant difference between groups | κ = 0.08–0.53 |
| Plodeck et al. (2020) [45] | 2017 | Germany | Retrospective | 114 | 2 | 3 T | Enema vs. no preparation | x | Enema had less artifacts on DWI | κ = 0.80 |
| Slough et al. (2018)[39] | 2015–2016 | UK | Prospective | 173 | 2 | 3 T | HBB vs. non-HBB | HBB improved image quality for T2WI | HBB reduced T2WI motion and blur | κ = 0.34–0.71 |
| Ullrich et al. (2017)[38] | Unspecified | Germany | Prospective | 103 | 2 | 3 T | HBB vs. non-HBB | HBB improved anatomic score on T2WI | HBB enhanced artifact score on T2WI | κ = 0.95–0.98 |
| Lim et al. (2014)[46] | 2013–2014 | Canada | Retrospective | 60 | 2 | 3 T | Enema vs. no preparation | No difference in image quality on T2W or ADC | No significant difference between groups | x |
| Roethke et al. (2013) [41] | 2010–2011 | Germany | Retrospective | 70 | 2 | 3 T | HBB vs. non-HBB | No significant difference between groups | No significant difference between groups | κ = 0.37–0.53 |
Abbreviations: DR=dietary restrictions; HBB=hyoscine butylbromide; ICC=intraclass correlation coefficient; κ=Cohen’s kappa coefficient.