ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2016
Sensory characterization of bowel cleansing solutions.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Can adjuncts to bowel preparation for colonoscopy improve patient experience and result in superior bowel cleanliness? A systematic review and meta-analysis.United European gastroenterology journal · 2020Pooled it
- A head-to-head comparison of 4-L polyethylene glycol and low-volume solutions before colonoscopy: which is the best? A multicentre, randomized trial.International journal of colorectal disease · 2017Trial
- A Customized Mobile Application in Colonoscopy Preparation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the sensory characteristics of commercial bowel cleansing preparations.
methodsSamples of 4 commercially available bowel cleansing preparations, namely polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution (PEG), PEG + ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc), sodium picosulfate (SPS), and oral sodium sulfate (OSS) were prepared according to the manufacturer's instructions. Descriptive analysis was conducted (n = 14) using a 15-cm line scale with the Compusense at-hand(®) sensory evaluation software. Acceptability testing (n = 80) was conducted using the 9-point hedonic scale. In addition, a Just-About-Right (JAR) scale was included for the four basic tastes to determine their intensity compatibility with acceptability levels in the products.
resultsSamples were significantly different, in descriptive analysis, for all attributes (P < 0.05) except for sweetness. SPS received the highest ratings for turbidity, viscosity appearance, orange odor and orange flavor; PEG-Asc for citrus odor and citrus flavor; OSS for sweetener taste, sweet aftertaste, bitterness, astringency, mouthcoating, bitter aftertaste and throatburn, and along with PEG-Asc, the highest ratings for saltiness, sourness and adhesiveness. Acceptability results showed significant differences between the various samples (P < 0.05). SPS received significantly higher ratings for overall acceptability, acceptability of taste, odor and mouthfeel (P < 0.05). JAR ratings showed that PEG and PEG-Asc were perceived as slightly too salty; SPS and OSS were slightly too sweet, while SPS, PEG-Asc and OSS were slightly too sour and OSS slightly too bitter. While using small sample volumes was necessary to avoid unwanted purgative effects, acceptability ratings do not reflect the true effect of large volumes intake thus limiting the generalization of the results.
conclusionFurther improvements are needed to enhance the sensory profile and to optimize the acceptability for better compliance with these bowel cleansing solutions.
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.