ArticlePloS one2017
A low-volume polyethylene glycol solution was associated with an increased suboptimal bowel preparation rate but had similar recommendations for an early repeat colonoscopy, procedure times, and adenoma detection rates.
Article in PloS one, 2017. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of 2 L versus 3 L polyethylene glycol in bowel preparation for colonoscopy.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Pooled it
- Comparing the Real-World Effectiveness of High- Versus Low-Volume Split Colonoscopy Preparations: An Experience Through the British Columbia Colon Cancer Screening Program.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Comparison of Small Versus Large Volume Split Dose Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Study of Colonoscopy Outcomes.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsLow-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) bowel preparations are better tolerated by patients than high-volume preparations and may achieve similar preparation quality. However, there is little data comparing their effects on a recommendation for an early repeat colonoscopy (because of a suboptimal preparation), procedure times, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR).
methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of outpatient colonoscopies performed during a one-year period at a single academic medical center in which low-volume MoviPrep® (n = 1841) or high-volume Colyte® (n = 1337) was used. All preparations were split-dosed. Appropriate covariates were included in regression models assessing suboptimal preparation quality (fair, poor, or inadequate), procedure times, recommendation for an early repeat colonoscopy, ADR, and AADR.
resultsMoviPrep® was associated with an increase in having a suboptimal bowel preparation (OR 1.36; 95% CI: 1.06-1.76), but it was not associated with differences in insertion (p = 0.43), withdrawal (p = 0.22), or total procedure times (p = 0.10). The adjusted percentage with a suboptimal preparation was 11.7% for patients using MoviPrep® and 8.8% for patients using Colyte®. MoviPrep® was not associated with a significant difference in overall ADR (OR 0.93; 95% CI: 0.78-1.11), AADR (OR 1.18; 95% CI: 0.87-1.62), or recommendation for early repeat colonoscopy (OR 1.16; 95% CI: 0.72-1.88).
conclusionsMoviPrep® was associated with a small absolute increase in having a suboptimal preparation, but did not affect recommendations for an early repeat colonoscopy, procedure times, or adenoma detection rates. Mechanisms to reduce financial barriers limiting low-volume preparations should be considered because of their favorable tolerability profile.
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.