ArticleBMJ open gastroenterology2016
Randomised clinical study comparing the effectiveness and physiological effects of hypertonic and isotonic polyethylene glycol solutions for bowel cleansing.
Article in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adherence and Effectiveness of MoviPrepJournal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2024Article
- Procedures for Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in Murine Microbiome Studies.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesBowel cleansing is necessary before colonoscopy, but is a burden to patients because of the long cleansing time and large dose volume. A low-volume (2 L) hypertonic polyethylene glycol-ascorbic acid solution (PEG-Asc) has been introduced, but its possible dehydration effects have not been quantitatively studied. We compared the efficacy and safety including the dehydration risk between hypertonic PEG-Asc and isotonic PEG regimens.
designThis was an observer-blinded randomised study. Participants (n=310) were allocated to receive 1 of 3 regimens on the day of colonoscopy: PEG-Asc (1.5 L) and water (0.75 L) dosed with 1 split (PEG-Asc-S) or 4 splits (PEG-Asc-M), or PEG-electrolyte solution (PEG-ES; 2.25 L) dosed with no split. Dehydration was analysed by measuring haematocrit (Ht).
resultsThe cleansing time using the hypertonic PEG-Asc-S (3.33±0.48 hours) was significantly longer than that with isotonic PEG-ES (3.05±0.56 hours; p<0.001). PEG-Asc-M (3.00±0.53 hours) did not have this same disadvantage. Successful cleansing was achieved in more than 94% of participants using each of the 3 regimens. The percentage changes in Ht from baseline (before dosing) to the end of dosing with PEG-Asc-S (3.53±3.32%) and PEG-Asc-M (4.11±3.07%) were significantly greater than that with PEG-ES (1.31±3.01%).
conclusionsThese 3 lower volume regimens were efficacious and had no serious adverse effects. Even patients cleansed with isotonic PEG-ES showed significant physiological dehydration at the end of dosing. The four-split PEG-Asc-M regimen is recommended because of its shorter cleansing time without causing serious nausea. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000013103; Results.
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.