Objectives Colonoscopy is integral in the early detection of colorectal cancer (CRC), be it for screening, diagnostic or therapeutic intentions. Despite the presence of multiple screening modalities, colonoscopy remains integral in providing a definitive CRC diagnosis. However, uptake rates remain low worldwide with minimal understanding towards stakeholders' perspectives. This systematic review is the first to outline the barriers and facilitators faced by providers and patients in receiving colonoscopy specifically. MethodsUsing PRISMA guidelines, our systematic review consolidates findings from Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core collection. All perceptions of healthcare providers and screening participants aged 45 and above towards colonoscopy were included. ResultsForty-five articles were included in our review. Five major analytical themes were identified -procedural perceptions, personal experiences, thoughts and concerns, societal influences, doctor-patient relationship and healthcare system. The discrepancies in knowledge between patients and providers have evidently reduced in the present decade, potentially attributable to the rising influence of social media. The sharing of providers' personal experiences, involvement of patients' family in colonoscopy recommendations and propagation of patients' positive recounts were also more apparent in the past compared to the present decade, highlighting the need to reevaluate the balance between medical confidentiality and personal touch. Additionally, Asian patients were reportedly more apathetic towards CRC diagnosis due to their strong belief in destiny, a crucial association consistent with present studies. ConclusionThis study highlights pertinent gaps in our healthcare system, providing crucial groundwork for interventions to be enacted in engendering higher colonoscopy uptake rates.

Objectives Colorectal cancer is among the top three most common cancers globally. In order to reduce the health burden, it is important to improve the uptake of colorectal cancer screening by understanding the barriers and facilitators encountered. There are numerous reports in the literature on the views of the general public on cancer screening. However, the experiences of colonoscopy patients are not as well studied. This paper maps their perceptions. Methods Keyword searches for terms such as ‘colorectal’, ‘colonoscopy’ and ‘qualitative’ were conducted on 3 December 2019 in five databases: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core Collection. Qualitative articles that quoted colonoscopy-experienced patients with no prior history of colorectal cancer were included for the thematic analysis. The systematic review was then synthesized according to PRISMA guidelines. Results The major themes were distilled into three categories: pre-procedure, during and post-procedure. The factors identified in the pre-procedure phase include the troublesome bowel preparation, poor quality of information provided and the dynamics within a support network. Perceptions of pain, emotional discomfort and the role of providers mark the experience during the procedure. The receipt of results, opportunities given for discussion and finances relating to colonoscopy are important post-procedure events. Conclusion Understanding colorectal cancer screening behaviour is fundamental for healthcare providers and authorities to develop system and personal level changes for the improvement of colorectal cancer screening services. The key areas include patient comfort, the use of clearer instructional aids and graphics, establishing good patient rapport, and the availability of individualized options for sedation and the procedure.

IntroductionThe evolution of colorectal screening has made headway with continual efforts globally to increase screening rates for colonoscopy-naïve patients. However, little has been done to encourage repeat colonoscopies after the initial scope despite recommendations to repeat colonoscopy every 10 years, with the uptake rates of repeat colonoscopy remaining abysmal at 22%. Methods Previously, a qualitative systematic review evaluated the barriers and facilitators patients faced in their decisions to undergo colonoscopy, analyzing articles from Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Key findings from articles which highlighted factors influencing patients' decisions to return for repeat colonoscopies were summarized. ResultsThree articles were identified in the search. Facilitators for repeat colonoscopy included patients' assurance garnered from fostered trust in the patientprovider relationship, their intrinsic motivations from fear of cancer and an innate appreciation for the significance of obtaining repeated colonoscopies. Procedural factors such as the option for procedural visualization, its comprehensiveness and the utilization of anesthesia were also crucial motivators. Barriers that patients highlighted comprised of cumbersome bowel preparation and potential complications. DiscussionRecently, minimal research has been conducted on the sentiments of healthcare providers and patients regarding repeat colonoscopy. The lack of emphasis from healthcare institutions on encouraging patients to repeat colonoscopy after 10 years prevents effective colorectal cancer screening. To proficiently alleviate the burden of colorectal cancer, patient counseling has to shift beyond explaining colonoscopy risks and complications to promoting regular follow-up scopes. This article thus calls for more studies to focus on evaluating the uptake of repeat colonoscopies. European

Pain is the most frequently encountered symptom by patients with fibromyalgia (FM). Dietary supplements (DSs) in particular have a proven impact as a possible adjunctive therapy for symptom management in FM. However, there is currently no conclusive review outlining the evidence for DSs in pain management in FM. This study aims to assess currently available studies evaluating the use of DSs for pain relief in FM. Randomized controlled trials regarding the use of DSs on adult FM patients were included for evidence synthesis. Study results indicated that DSs significantly relieved pain in FM (SMD 1.23; 95% CI 0.02–2.43, [Formula: see text] = 0.046) but did not improve quality of life (QoL) (SMD 0.73; 95% CI −0.07–1.53, [Formula: see text] = 0.075) in the data. Adverse events of DSs varied from mild to severe, with the most common being gastrointestinal symptoms and androgenic side effects in 5.7% and 3.9% of patients, respectively. More well-designed RCTs are required in the future. The protocol for this review has been published on PROSPERO (CRD42020149941).

Objective This review evaluated the safety profile and efficacy of probiotics in chronic rhinosinusitis and was registered with Prospero (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination number: 42020193529). Method Literature databases were searched through inception to August 2022. Randomised, controlled trials exploring adjunctive probiotics in adult chronic rhinosinusitis patients were included. From 948 records screened, 4 randomised, controlled trials were included. Results Probiotics-associated adverse effects comprised epistaxis and abdominal pain. No reduction in Sino-Nasal Outcome Test values before 4 weeks (p = 0.58) or beyond 8 weeks (p = 0.08) of treatment or reduction of severe symptom frequency (p = 0.75) was observed. Symptom relapse in probiotic-treated patients was significantly lower across all timepoints (p = 0.045). Lower sinusitis relapse risks during treatment (risk ratio = 0.49; p = 0.019) and 8 months post-treatment (risk ratio = 0.56, p = 0.013) were observed. Probiotics demonstrated potential in improving Sino-Nasal Outcome Test symptom subscales, including sleep, psychological and rhinology subscales. Conclusion The optimal mode of probiotic administration, treatment duration and target patient subgroups requires further study to evaluate the utility of probiotics.