Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29533397›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of gastroenterology2018

Same-Day Single Dose of 2 Liter Polyethylene Glycol is Not Inferior to The Standard Bowel Preparation Regimen in Low-Risk Patients: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

Xiaoyu Kang, Lina Zhao, Zhiyong Zhu, Felix Leung, Limei Wang, Xiangping Wang, Hui Luo, Linhui Zhang, Tao Dong, Pingying Li and 7 more

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readComparative StudyEquivalence Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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.

NCT04582942 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Improved Bowel Preparation Method for Colonoscopy Based on Different Risk Stratification:a Multicenter, Endoscopist-blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorRenmin Hospital of Wuhan UniversityRan2020 to 2021Enrolled2,028ConditionsBowel Preparation Before ColonoscopyArmsPEG, PEG+lactulose
NCT04709770 phase4unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of Low-volume Versus High-volume Polyethylene Glycol Based Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in People Receiving Hemodialysis: a Randomized Non-inferiority Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorAlfredo Di LeoRan2021 to 2022Enrolled264ConditionsChronic Kidney Diseases, Colon Polyp, Dialysis, ComplicationsArms2-liters polyethylene glycol with citrate and simethicone, 4-liters polyethylene glycol with simethicone, Low-residue diet
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Same-day single-doseWorld journal of clinical cases · 2022
    Article
  14. The unmet needs for identifying the ideal bowel preparation.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2021
    Review
  15. Article
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

17 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Xiaoyu KangState key Laboratory of Cancer Biology, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases and Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Lina ZhaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xian, China.
Zhiyong ZhuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Qinghai Provincial People's Hospital, Xining, China.
Felix LeungSepulveda ACC, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, NorthHill, California, USA.
Limei WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shaanxi Second People's Hospital, Xi'an, China.
Xiangping WangState key Laboratory of Cancer Biology, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases and Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Hui LuoState key Laboratory of Cancer Biology, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases and Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Linhui ZhangState key Laboratory of Cancer Biology, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases and Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Tao DongState key Laboratory of Cancer Biology, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases and Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Pingying LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Qinghai Provincial People's Hospital, Xining, China.
Zhangqin ChenDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shaanxi Second People's Hospital, Xi'an, China.
Gui RenState key Laboratory of Cancer Biology, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases and Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Hui JiaState key Laboratory of Cancer Biology, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases and Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Xiaoyang GuoState key Laboratory of Cancer Biology, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases and Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Yanglin PanState key Laboratory of Cancer Biology, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases and Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Xuegang GuoState key Laboratory of Cancer Biology, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases and Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Daiming FanState key Laboratory of Cancer Biology, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases and Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Air Force Medical University · CNNational Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases · CNQinghai Provincial Peoples Hospital · CNShaanxi Provincial People's Hospital · CNShanxi Medical University · CNVA Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center · USXijing Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesSplit dose of 4 l polyethylene glycol (PEG) is currently the standard regimen for bowel preparation (BP). However, it may be unnecessary for patients without high risks (e.g., old age, constipation, and diabetes, and so on) for inadequate BP. The study aimed to compare the efficacy of bowel cleansing between low-risk patients receiving same-day, single dose of low-volume (SSL) PEG vs. standard regimen.

methodsThis prospective, randomized, observer-blinded, non-inferiority study enrolled low-risk patients in three centers. Patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized (1:1) to the SSL or standard group. The primary outcome was adequate BP, defined by Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS) ≥6 and each segmental score ≥2. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, cecal intubation rate, and patient willingness to repeat BP, and so on.

resultsAmong 2,532 patients eligible for the study, 940 (37.1%) were at low risk and 792 (31.3%) at high risk for inadequate BP. The low-risk patients were randomly allocated to the SSL (n=470) or standard group (n=470). The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that adequate BP was achieved in 88.1% in the SSL group and 87.0% in the standard group (relative risk (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.75-1.63, P=0.621). The overall BBPS was 7.3±1.2 and 7.3±1.3, respectively (P=0.948). No significant differences were found between the two groups with regards to the right, transverse, and left-segmental colon BBPS (all P>0.05). However, in terms of adverse events, patients in the SSL group reported less nausea (19.6% vs. 29.9%), vomiting (5.3% vs. 11.4%), and abdominal discomfort (2.2% vs. 6.0%) compared with those in the standard group. More patients in the SSL group were willing to repeat BP (94.0% vs. 89.5%, P=0.015).

conclusionsFor low-risk patients, the SSL regimen was not inferior to the split dose of 4 l PEG for adequacy of BP. Single dose of low-volume regimen had significantly fewer adverse events. This simplified regimen may be preferable in the "easy-to prepare" population.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyAdultCatharticsCecumFemaleHumansIntention to Treat AnalysisIntubation, GastrointestinalMaleMiddle AgedNauseaPatient SatisfactionPolyethylene GlycolsProspective StudiesRisk FactorsSingle-Blind MethodCatharticsPolyethylene Glycols

Identifiers

PMID29533397
OpenAlexW2793166271

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.