ArticleSAGE open medicine2017
Comparison of claims data on hospitalization rates and repeat procedures in patients receiving a bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy.
Article in SAGE open medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Colonoscopy: Preparation and Potential Complications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The impact of increasing multitarget stool DNA use among colorectal cancer screeners in a self-insured US employer population.Journal of market access & health policy · 2021Article
- The importance of colonoscopy bowel preparation for the detection of colorectal lesions and colorectal cancer prevention.Endoscopy international open · 2020Review
- Real-world comparison of the effectiveness and safety of different bowel preparation agents.Clinical and experimental gastroenterology · 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
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate outcomes of colorectal screening using sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate compared with other prescription bowel-preparation agents. Primary endpoints were rates of procedure-associated hospitalizations, diagnosis at hospitalization, and rates of early repeat screenings.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study identified patients using the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan databases, which contain fully adjudicated, de-identified, medical- and prescription-drug claims, as well as demographic and enrollment information for individuals with commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare supplemental insurance coverage. Patients who had a colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy over a 3-year period were identified using
resultsA total of 566,628 procedures were identified in the MarketScan databases and included in the study. Sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate performed well in terms of safety outcomes, with no hospitalizations due to diagnosis of hyponatremia, dehydration, or other fluid disorders in the 10 days after procedure. Early repeat rates among sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate patients were comparable with rates observed for all other cleansing agents.
conclusionOutcomes of colorectal screening using sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate were not significantly different compared with other prescription bowel-preparation agents.
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.