Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2017
Phosphate tablets or polyethylene glycol for preparation to colonoscopy? A multicentre non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01840553 (A Randomized Assessor-blinded Multicenter International Study Investigating Efficacy Patients Acceptance Safety and Tolerability of Sodium Phosphate Tablets Compared to Split Dose Polyethylene Glycol for Colon Cleansing Prior to Colonoscopy), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 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.
A Randomized Assessor-blinded Multicenter International Study Investigating Efficacy Patients Acceptance Safety and Tolerability of Sodium Phosphate Tablets Compared to Split Dose Polyethylene Glycol for Colon Cleansing Prior to Colonoscopy
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of oral sodium phosphate tablets and polyethylene glycol lavage solution for colonoscopy preparation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of sodium phosphate powder for bowel cleansing in patients aged 50-70 years: a randomised, multicentre, single-blind trial.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Trial
- The Effects and Adverse Reactions of Different Bowel Cleansers on Gut Microbiota After Colonoscopy.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Cleaning effect and tolerance of 16 bowel preparation regimens on adult patients before colonoscopy: a network meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2023Review
- Serum electrolytes, osmolality, and cleansing quality after bowel prep for colonoscopy with a PEG solution containing ascorbic acid and electrolytes.International journal of colorectal disease · 2022Article
- Article
- Randomized Controlled Trial of Polyethylene Glycol versus Oral Sodium Phosphate for Bowel Preparation in Unsedated Colonoscopy.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2020Article
- Comparing the Real-World Effectiveness of Competing Colonoscopy Preparations: Results of a Prospective Trial.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdequate bowel preparation is a crucial step in colonoscopy procedure and has been identified as the cornerstone of a quality colonoscopy. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel cleansing still had up to 10 % unprepared colon.
aimWe herein compare efficacy, acceptability, tolerance and safety of sodium phosphate (NaP) tablets and split-dose PEG for bowel cleansing. PATIENTS AND
methodsA prospective non-inferiority randomized trial was performed and registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01840553). Patients were randomized to either 32 NaP tablets or 4 L of PEG. Blind readers assessed the efficacy of colon cleansing using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).
resultsA total of 461 patients were randomized in groups (NaP group: n = 231; PEG group: n = 230). Median age was 54 and 52 in NaP group and PEG group, respectively (p < 0.01). Patients experienced an overall compliance to the treatment in 99.6 and 94.1 % in the NaP group and in the PEG group, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean time of withdrawal was 15.1 ± 8.9 and 15.4 ± 9.5 min in the NaP group and in the PEG group, respectively (p = 0.95). The good quality of bowel preparation, defined as BBPS score ≥7, was obtained in 86.4 and 89.0 % of cases in the NaP group and in the PEG group, respectively (p = 0.42). In all segment (right colon, transverse colon and left colon and rectum), the NaP group was non-inferior to the PEG group. Bowel prep regimen was more frequently considered as "easy" by patients from the NaP group (54.8 % of patients) than patients from the PEG group (29.0 % of patients; p < 0.001). No serious adverse events were reported. No statistical differences were found between the NaP group and the PEG group concerning the incidence of an adverse event (338 vs. 322, respectively).
conclusionWhile NaP tablets appeared as efficient as PEG in terms of colon cleansing prior to a colonoscopy, they significantly improved the overall compliance and eased product administration. At an era where bowel cleansing appears to be the cornerstone of a quality colonoscopy, NaP tablets in patients without contraindication might be considered as an option.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27864718What 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.