Background and Aims. Portal vein thrombosis is a serious adverse event that occurs during liver cirrhosis. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of anticoagulant therapy and prophylactic anticoagulant therapy in cirrhosis patients with (/without) portal vein thrombosis. Methods. Eligible comparative studies were identified by searching the following electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CNKI. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals using fixed-effects models. Recanalization and thrombus progression were defined as the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and death mortality. Results. A total of 3479 patients were included in this analysis. Compared with the control group, the recanalization rate in the anticoagulant therapy group was increased P < 0.00001 in patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis without increasing adverse events. Multiple use of enoxaparin in small doses is safer than single large doses P = 0.004 . Direct oral anticoagulants are more effective P < 0.00001 and safer than traditional anticoagulants. Prophylactic anticoagulant therapy can effectively prevent portal vein thrombosis formation P < 0.00001 . Conclusions. Anticoagulation therapy can treat or prevent portal vein thrombosis in patients with liver cirrhosis and is a relatively safe treatment.

Background Colonoscopy is widely used for the screening, diagnosis and treatment of intestinal diseases. Adequate bowel preparation is a prerequisite for high-quality colonoscopy. However, the rate of adequate bowel preparation in outpatients is low. Several studies on supplementary education methods have been conducted to improve the rate of adequate bowel preparation in outpatients. However, the controversial results presented encourage us to perform this meta-analysis. Method According to the PRISMA statement (2020), the meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO. We searched all studies up to August 28, 2021, in the three major electronic databases of PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation rate, and the secondary outcomes included bowel preparation quality score, polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, nonattendance rate and willingness to repeat rate. If there was obvious heterogeneity, the funnel plot combined with Egger’s test, meta-regression analysis, sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were used to detect the source of heterogeneity. RevMan 5.3 and Stata 17.0 software were used for statistical analysis. Results A total of 2061 records were retrieved, and 21 full texts were ultimately included in the analysis. Our meta-analysis shows that supplementary education can increase the rate of adequate bowel preparation for outpatients (79.9% vs 72.9%, RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.08–1.20, I2 = 87%, p<0.00001). Supplementary education shortened the withdrawal time (MD: -0.80, 95% CI: -1.54 to -0.05, p = 0.04) of outpatients, increased the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (MD: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.44, p<0.00001), reduced the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (MD: -1.26, 95% CI: -1.66 to -0.86, p<0.00001) and increased the willingness to repeat (91.9% vs 81.4%, RR:1.14, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.25, p = 0.004). Conclusion Supplementary education for outpatients based on the standard of care can significantly improve the quality of bowel preparation.

No abstract