Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27124170›Full record

ArticleJournal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives2016

Impact of bowel preparation type on the quality of colonoscopy: a multicenter community-based study.

Daniel Martin, Saqib Walayat, Zohair Ahmed, Sonu Dhillon, Carl V Asche, Srinivas Puli, Jinma Ren

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Exploring intraprocedural performance in colonoscopy: Insights from a tertiary care center in Saudi Arabia.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel MartinDepartment of Gastroenterology, OSF Saint Francis Medical Center, Peoria, IL, USA.
Saqib WalayatDepartment of Gastroenterology, OSF Saint Francis Medical Center, Peoria, IL, USA.
Zohair AhmedDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria, Peoria, IL, USA.
Sonu DhillonDepartment of Gastroenterology, OSF Saint Francis Medical Center, Peoria, IL, USA.
Carl V AscheDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria, Peoria, IL, USA.
Srinivas PuliDepartment of Gastroenterology, OSF Saint Francis Medical Center, Peoria, IL, USA.
Jinma RenDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria, Peoria, IL, USA.
OSF Saint Francis Medical Center · USIllinois College · USUniversity of Illinois Chicago · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh-quality bowel preparation is crucial for achieving the goals of colonoscopy. However, choosing a bowel preparation in clinical practice can be challenging because of the many formulations. This study aims to assess the impact the type of bowel preparation on the quality of colonoscopy in a community hospital setting.

methodsA retrospective, observational study was conducted utilizing a colonoscopy screening/surveillance database in central Illinois during the period of January 1, 2010, to March 31, 2014. Patients without bowel preparation assessment were excluded from this study. Controlling for the confounders, generalized linear models were used to estimate the adjusted impact [odds ratio (OR)] of bowel preparation type on the quality of preparation (excellent, good, fair, and poor), and on the detection of advanced adenoma. The association between the time of withdrawal after insertion and the quality of preparation was also examined using a linear model.

resultsA total of 28,368 colonoscopies; half the patients were male, and the average age was 61±9 years. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) was used in the majority (70.2%) of bowel preparations, followed by sodium sulfate (21.4%), sodium phosphate (2.5%), magnesium sulfate (0.4%), and others. Compared with PEG, magnesium sulfate had a poorer quality of bowel preparations (OR=0.6, 95% CI 0.4-0.9; p<0.05), whereas the quality of bowel preparation was significantly improved by using sodium sulfate (OR=5.7, 95% CI 5.4-6.1; p<0.001) and sodium phosphate (OR=2.1, 95% CI 1.8-2.5; p<0.001). For those who had adequate bowel preparation, the better quality of preparation significantly increased the detection rate of advanced adenoma (5.0, 3.6, and 2.9% for excellent, good, and fair, respectively).

conclusionWhen possible, sodium sulfate-based preparations should be recommended in the community setting for colonoscopy because of their high quality of bowel preparation.

Indexed as

bowel prepcolonoscopypolyethylene glycolsodium sulfate

Identifiers

PMID27124170
PMCPMC4848432
OpenAlexW2344123808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.