The aim of this scoping review is to evaluate the impact of smartphone application (SPA) technology in patients undergoing elective colonoscopy to measure compliance with appointments, cost-effectiveness, bowel preparation, and quality of life. The scoping review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Ovid Medline, Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and PubMed were screened up to Oct 14, 2020, and bibliographies of the retrieved articles were included. Based on pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria, 8 primary studies were included in the final analysis from a total of 3,979 non-duplicate articles. Seven out of eight studies measured the bowel preparation quality. In six of these studies, patients in the smartphone group had a successful bowel preparation when compared with the control arm; on the other hand, one study did not find any differences between groups. Adherence to colonoscopy screening was assessed by one study. Patients in the digital intervention arm were significantly more likely to complete a screening test. Patient satisfaction during the periprocedural period of colonoscopy was assessed by five studies which reported significantly higher patient satisfaction in the intervention arm compared to the control arm. None of the studies measured cost-effectiveness. We came to the conclusion that a well-designed, user-friendly SPA can help and guide patients undergoing colonoscopy through the process of following up on their appointments, adhering to bowel preparation, and better understanding their disease condition. Future trials investigating SPAs should include cost-effectiveness and adherence to appointments as an endpoint.

Background/Objectives: There are conflicting results on the effects of ferric derisomaltose (FDM) vs. iron sucrose (IS) for treatment of iron deficiency anemia (IDA). We systematically assessed the efficacy and safety of these treatments. Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, Pubmed, and Cochrane Central for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and/or safety of FDM vs. IS in patients with IDA. The primary efficacy outcome was the change in hemoglobin (Hb) levels at week 4, and the safety outcome was serious or severe hypersensitivity reactions, as defined by a standardized set of Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) terms. Inverse-variance random effects models were used for meta-analyses. Results: Five RCTs were included: two in general IDA (n = 1994), two in non-dialysis chronic kidney disease (n = 1542), and one in hemodialysis patients (n = 344). The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of FDM vs. IS for Hb change at week 4 (mean difference [MD] 0.09 g/dL, 95% CI −0.33 to 0.52; I² = 84%, very low CoE), serious or severe hypersensitivity reactions (MedDRA A + B + C + D, relative risk [RR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.68; I² = 0%, very low CoE), Hb change at week 8 (MD 0.04 g/dL, 95% CI −0.08 to 0.15; I² = 0%, very low CoE), Hb increase of ≥2 g/dL at week 4 (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.38; I² = 70%, very low CoE), and anaphylactic reactions (MedDRA A, RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.72; I² = 0%, very low CoE). Conclusions: We found that FDM vs. IS had little to no effect on outcomes for the treatment of IDA.