Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28241037›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2017

Randomized controlled trial: Standard versus supplemental bowel preparation in patients with Bristol stool form 1 and 2.

Yueyue Li, Xinyong Jia, Baozhen Liu, Yanmei Qi, Xiubin Zhang, Rui Ji, Yanbo Yu, Xiuli Zuo, Yanqing Li

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2017. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

9 authors.

Yueyue LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Laboratory of Translational Gastroenterology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Xinyong JiaDepartment of Endoscopy, Qianfoshan Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Baozhen LiuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Binzhou People's Hospital, Binzhou, China.
Yanmei QiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Binzhou People's Hospital, Binzhou, China.
Xiubin ZhangDepartment of Endoscopy, Qianfoshan Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Rui JiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Laboratory of Translational Gastroenterology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Yanbo YuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Laboratory of Translational Gastroenterology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Xiuli ZuoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Laboratory of Translational Gastroenterology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Yanqing LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Laboratory of Translational Gastroenterology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBristol stool form 1 and 2 is an important predictor of inadequate bowel preparation.

aimTo evaluate the efficacy of supplemental preparation in bowel cleansing quality among patients with Bristol stool form 1 and 2, as well as the feasibility of tailored bowel preparation guided by Bristol stool form scale.

methodsPatients with Bristol stool form 1 and 2 from 3 Chinese tertiary hospitals randomly received either 2 L PEG-ELP (group A) or 10 mg bisacodyl plus 2 L PEG-ELP (group B); patients with Bristol stool form 3 to 7 received 2 L PEG-ELP (group C) for bowel preparation. The primary endpoint is the rate of adequate bowel reparation for the whole colon. The adequate bowel preparation rate for separate colon segments, the polyp detection rate (PDR), tolerability, acceptability, sleeping quality and compliance were evaluated as secondary endpoints.

results700 patients were randomized. In per-protocol analysis, patients in group B attained significantly higher successful preparation rate than group A (88.7% vs. 61.2%, p<0.001) and similar with group C (88.7% vs. 85.0%, p = 0.316). The PDR in group B was significantly higher than group A (43.2% vs. 25.7%, p<0.001). Acceptability was much higher in group B and C.

conclusions10 mg bisacodyl plus 2 L PEG-ELP can significantly improve both bowel preparation quality and PDR in patients with Bristol stool form 1 and 2. Bristol stool form scale may be an easy and efficient guide for tailored bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBisacodylCatharticsChinaColonoscopyFecesFemaleHumansIntestinesMaleMiddle AgedPatient CompliancePatient SatisfactionPolypsProspective StudiesBisacodylCathartics

Identifiers

PMID28241037
PMCPMC5328251

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.