ArticleClinical radiology2014
Intra-individual comparison of magnesium citrate and sodium phosphate for bowel preparation at CT colonography: automated volumetric analysis of residual fluid for quality assessment.
Article in Clinical radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of MiraLAX and magnesium citrate for bowel preparation at CT colonography.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Article
- Objective and Subjective Intrapatient Comparison of Iohexol Versus Diatrizoate for Bowel Preparation Quality at CT Colonography.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2016Article
- CT colonography after incomplete optical colonoscopy: bowel preparation quality at same-day vs. deferred examination.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo perform an objective, intra-individual comparison of residual colonic fluid volume and attenuation associated with the current front-line laxative magnesium citrate (MgC) versus the former front-line laxative sodium phosphate (NaP) at CT colonography (CTC). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study had institutional review board approval; informed consent was waived. The study cohort included 250 asymptomatic adults (mean age at index 56.1 years; 124 male/126 female) who underwent CTC screening twice over a 5 year interval. Colon catharsis at initial and follow-up screening employed single-dose NaP and double-dose MgC, respectively, allowing for intra-patient comparison. Automated volumetric analysis of residual colonic fluid volume and attenuation was performed on all 500 CTC studies. Colonic fluid volume <200 ml and mean attenuation between 300-900 HU were considered optimal. Paired t-test and McNemar's test were used to compare differences.
resultsResidual fluid volumes <200 ml were recorded in 192 examinations (76.8%) following MgC and in 204 examinations (81.6%) following NaP (p = 0.23). The mean total residual fluid volume was 155 ± 114 ml for MgC and 143 ± 100 ml for NaP (p = 0.01). The attenuation range of 300-900 HU was significantly more frequent for MgC (n = 220, 88%) than for NaP (n = 127, 50.8%; p < 0.001). Mean fluid attenuation was significantly lower for MgC (700 ± 165 HU) than for NaP (878 ± 155 HU; p < 0.001). Concomitant presence of both optimal fluid volume and attenuation was significantly more frequent for MgC 65.2% than for NaP (38%; p < 0.001).
conclusionsObjective intra-individual comparison using automated volumetric analysis suggests that the replacement of NaP by MgC as the front-line laxative for CTC has not compromised overall examination quality.
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.