Trial reportPloS one2015
Impact of the quality of bowel cleansing on the efficacy of colonic cancer screening: a prospective, randomized, blinded study.
Trial report in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01689792 (A Multi-centre, Randomised, Investigator-blinded Study Comparing the Polyp Detection Rate of Two Different Types of Bowel Preparation), which is not on this map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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.
A Multi-centre, Randomised, Investigator-blinded Study Comparing the Polyp Detection Rate of Two Different Types of Bowel Preparation: a 2-litre Solution (MOVIPREP®) Versus a Hyperosmotic and Stimulant Combined Low Volume Bowel Preparation (Sodium Picosulfate and Magnesium Citrate)
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2022Pooled it
- Systematic review and meta-analysis: sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate vs. polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy preparation.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Pooled it
- A prospective, single-blinded, non-inferiority, randomized controlled study comparing the effectiveness and safety of oral lactulose combined with carbohydrate-containing clear liquids versus 3-L polyethylene glycol electrolyte for colonoscopy bowel preparation.European journal of medical research · 2025Trial
- 1L NER1006 can improve rates of adequate and high-quality bowel cleansing in the right colon: a post hoc analysis of two randomised clinical trials.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Trial
- Trial
- NEW BOWEL PREPARATION TECHNIQUE FOR COLONOSCOPY: CLINICAL TRIAL COMPARING AQUANET AND MANNITOL.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2018Trial
- COLONOSCOPY: RANDOMIZED COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INSUFFLATION WITH CARBON DIOXIDE VERSUS AIR.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgeryTrial
- Korean clinical practice guidelines for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Patient-reported outcomes and measures applied in individuals undergoing colonoscopy surveillance for colorectal cancer: a scoping review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Comparison of the Effectiveness of Three Different Combinations for Colonoscopy Preparation: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Innovative schemes of colonoscopy bowel preparation with oral lactulose: Optimizing traditional standards to improve colonoscopy quality.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Review
- Pilot randomized trial of efficacy and safety of yogic technique versus polyethylene glycol solution for bowel preparation in colonoscopy.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2025Article
- Novel regimen for colonoscopy bowel preparation with oral lactulose: a prospective comparative study.Clinical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Colon Bowel Preparation in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: Is There Potential for Enhancing Colon Bowel Cleansing?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- Factors affecting the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy in hard-to-prepare patients: Evidence from the literature.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Safety, Efficacy and High-Quality Standards of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Procedures in Personalized Sedoanalgesia Managed by the Gastroenterologist: A Retrospective Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- The Effectiveness and Tolerability of a Very Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy Compared to Low and High-Volume Polyethylene Glycol-Solutions in the Real-Life Setting.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Novel frontiers of agents for bowel cleansing for colonoscopy.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Split-dose 1 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbate is non-inferior to split-dose PEG with sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate with similar tolerability: a randomized study.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2021Article
- Article
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEfficacy of two low volume bowel cleansing preparations, polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (PEG + Asc) and sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (NaPic/MgCit), were compared for polyp and adenoma detection rate (PDR and ADR) and overall cleansing ability. Primary endpoint was PDR (the number of patients with ≥ 1 polypoid or flat lesion recorded by the colonoscopist).
methodsDiagnostic, surveillance or screening colonoscopy patients were enrolled into this investigator-blinded, multi-center Phase IV study and randomized 1:1 to receive PEG + Asc (administered the evening before and the morning of colonoscopy, per label) or NaPic/MgCit (administered in the morning and afternoon the day before colonoscopy, per label). The blinded colonoscopist documented any lesion and assessed cleansing quality (Harefield Cleansing Scale).
resultsOf 394 patients who completed the study, 393 (PEG + Asc, N = 200; NaPic/MgCit, N = 193) had a colonoscopy. Overall PDR for PEG+Asc versus NaPic/MgCit was 51.5% versus 44.0%, p = 0.139. PDR and ADR on the right side of the bowel were significantly higher with PEG + Asc versus NaPic/MgCit (PDR: 56[28.0%] versus 32[16.6%], p = 0.007; ADR: 42[21.0%] versus 23[11.9%], p = 0.015), as was detection of flat lesions (43[21.5%] versus 25[13.0%], p = 0.025). Cleansing quality was better with PEG + Asc than NaPic/MgCit (98.5% versus 57.5% considered successful cleansing). Overall, there were 132 treatment-emergent adverse events (93 versus 39 for PEG+Asc and NaPic/MgCit, respectively). These were mainly mild abdominal symptoms, all of which were reported for higher proportions of patients in the PEG+Asc than NaPic/MgCit group. Twice as many patients in the NaPic/MgCit versus the PEG + Asc group reported tolerance of cleansing solution as 'very good'.
conclusionsCompared with NaPic/MgCit, PEG + Asc may be more efficacious for overall cleansing ability, and subsequent detection of right-sided and flat lesions. This is likely attributable to the different administration schedules of the two bowel cleansing preparations, which may positively impact the detection and prevention of colorectal cancer, thereby improving mortality rates.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01689792.
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.