Trial reportSurgery today2016
Comparison of the risk of surgical site infection and feasibility of surgery between sennoside versus polyethylene glycol as a mechanical bowel preparation of elective colon cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Surgery today, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preoperative combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation for preventing complications in elective colorectal surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Impact of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: A meta-analysis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2018Pooled it
- Review
- Meta-analysis of postoperative incision infection risk factors in colorectal cancer surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- The risk of surgical site infection of oral sulfate tabletAnnals of surgical treatment and research · 2022Article
- Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery for obstructive colorectal cancer: advantages and disadvantages.Surgery today · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo validate the usefulness of sennoside as a substitute for polyethylene glycol (PEG) as a mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for elective colon cancer surgery.
methodsWe performed a prospective randomized non-inferiority trial comparing the use of sennoside and PEG in MBP for elective colon cancer surgery, in terms of the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) and the feasibility of surgery.
resultsThe overall incidence of SSIs was 2.9 % in the sennoside group (n = 68) and 6.3 % in the PEG group (n = 63) with a difference of 3.4 % (95 % confidence interval 6.9-10.6 %). The intraoperative spillage of the stool materials in the sennoside and PEG groups was 4.4 and 3.1 %, respectively, and was not significantly different (p = 0.71), even the upstream stool consistency, was more frequently observed to be non-stool in the PEG group (65.1 vs. 30.9 %, p < 0.01).
conclusionMBP with sennoside could be a substitution for PEG in elective colon cancer surgery.
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.