Trial reportDigestive diseases and sciences2015
Transenteral bowel preparation for colonoscopy is more comfortable than the traditional method with no inferiority in efficacy.
Trial report in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bowel preparation: is endoscopic administration worth the extra risk?Digestive diseases and sciences · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransenteral (TE) administration of a bowel cleanser prior to colonoscopy avoids the discomfort associated with drinking a large volume of unpalatable cleanser.
aimTo explore patient comfort, preference for future colonoscopy, the efficacy and adverse events associated with TE bowel preparation.
methodsBowel preparation is traditionally practised using polyethylene glycol (PEG) + ascorbic acid (ASC), which was the treatment used in the control group (peroral group; PO group). In the study group (TE group), PEG + ASC were administered directly to the third portion of the duodenum through a scope immediately after completing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
resultsA higher proportion of subjects in the TE group graded their degree of comfort as very or rather comfortable (28.4 % in the PO group, 65.1 % in the TE group; p = 0.000) and had greater preference for future colonoscopy (69.6 % in the PO group, 82.5 % in the TE group; p = 0.030), compared with the PO group. The TE group had non-inferiority in efficacy compared with the PO group (non-inferiority margin -15 %; lower limit of 95 % confidence interval for difference between success rates -6.4 %, when using the Aronchick Scale, and -7.1 % when using the Ottawa Scale). Nausea or vomiting were more prevalent during preparation in the PO group (46.1 vs. 17.5 %; p = 0.000), and dizziness was more common in the TE group (0 vs. 12.6 %; p = 0.000).
conclusionsTE preparation was found to be more comfortable than the traditional peroral method and not inferior in efficacy. The adverse events rate was acceptable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.