Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26179377›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of colorectal disease2015

A randomized trial to compare the efficacy and tolerability of sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate solution vs. 4 L polyethylene glycol solution as a bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Miguel Muñoz-Navas, José Luis Calleja, Guillermo Payeras, Antonio José Hervás, Luis Esteban Abreu, Víctor Orive, Pedro L Menchén, José María Bordas, José Ramón Armengol, Cristina Carretero and 7 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of colorectal disease, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 15 institutions in 1 country.

Miguel Muñoz-NavasInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra (Idisna), Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
José Luis CallejaDepartment of Gastroenterology, IDIPHIM, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro, Joaquin Rodrigo 2, Majadahonda, 28222, Madrid, Spain. joseluis.calleja@uam.es.
Guillermo PayerasHospital Infanta Elena Valdemoro, Madrid, Spain.
Antonio José HervásHospital General Universitario Reina Sofía, Córdoba, Spain.
Luis Esteban AbreuDepartment of Gastroenterology, IDIPHIM, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro, Joaquin Rodrigo 2, Majadahonda, 28222, Madrid, Spain.
Víctor OriveHospital Basurto, Bilbao, Spain.
Pedro L MenchénHospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
José María BordasHospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
José Ramón ArmengolHospital Universitari Vall d'Hebrón, Barcelona, Spain.
Cristina CarreteroInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra (Idisna), Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Vicente Pons BeltránHospital Universitari i Politècnic la Fe, Valencia, Spain.
Inmaculada Alonso-AbreuHospital Universitario de Canarias, La Laguna, Spain.
Román MantecaHospital Regional Universitario Carlos Haya, Málaga, Spain.
Adolfo Parra-BlancoHospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain.
Fernando CarballoHospital Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca, Murcia, Spain.
Juan Manuel HerreríasHospital Virgen Macarena, Sevilla, Spain.
Carlos BadiolaLaboratorios Casen Recordati S.L., Zaragoza, Spain.
Clinica Universidad de Navarra · ESHospital Clínic de Barcelona · ESHospital de Basurto · ESHospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón · ESHospital Regional Universitario de Málaga · ESHospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe · ESHospital Universitario Central de Asturias · ESHospital Universitario de Canarias · ESHospital Universitario Infanta Leonor · ESHospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda · ESHospital Universitario Reina Sofía · ESHospital Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca · ESHospital Universitario Virgen Macarena · ESRecordati (Spain) · ESVall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and acceptability of an evening-before regimens of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) as bowel cleansers and to explore the results of a same-day regimen of SPMC.

methodsMulticenter, randomized, observer-blinded, parallel study carried out in subjects who were 18-80 years old and were undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy for the first time. The primary outcome was treatment success, which was a composite outcome defined by (1) the evaluation of the overall preparation quality as "excellent" or "good" by two blinded independent evaluators with the Fleet(®) Grading Scale for Bowel Cleansing and (2) a subject's acceptability rating of "easy to take" or "tolerable." The primary outcome was analyzed using a logistic regression with site, gender, and age group (age ≥65 years and <65 years) as factors.

resultsFour hundred ninety subjects were included in the efficacy evaluation. Although treatment success was significantly higher in subjects assigned to the evening-before regimen of SPMC vs. subjects assigned to the evening-before PEG, when evaluating the two individual components for treatment success, there were significant differences in the ease of completion but not in the quality of preparation. The same-day SPMC regimen was superior to both the evening-before regimen of SPMC and PEG in terms of the quality of preparation, especially regarding the proximal colon.

conclusionsAn evening-before regimen of SPMC is superior to an evening-before regimen of PEG in terms of subject's acceptability. The same-day SPMC regimen provides better cleansing levels in the proximal colon.

Indexed as

CatharticsCitratesCitric AcidOrganometallic CompoundsPatient SatisfactionPicolinesPolyethylene GlycolsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overColonoscopyDrug Administration ScheduleFemaleGastrointestinal DiseasesHumansCatharticsCitratesCitric Acidmagnesium citrateOrganometallic CompoundsPicolinespicosulfate sodiumPolyethylene GlycolsBowel cleansing colonoscopyPolyethylene glycolRandomized trialSame-day bowel preparationSodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate

Identifiers

PMID26179377
OpenAlexW919020770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.