ReviewEndoscopy international open2018
A comparative review of use of sulphate and phosphate salts for colonoscopy preparations and their potential for nephrotoxicity.
Review in Endoscopy international open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of a novel sodium picosulfate oral tablet in a randomized controlled trial for bowel preparation.World journal of gastroenterology · 2026Trial
- Korean clinical practice guidelines for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Updated bowel preparation regimens for colonoscopy: benefits and drawbacks.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Low-volume bowel preparation provides safe and effective pan-enteric capsule endoscopy in suspected or established Crohn's disease.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2026Article
- Pharmacology of Mammalian NaHandbook of experimental pharmacology · 2024Article
- Computational evidence for nitro derivatives of quinoline and quinoline N-oxide as low-cost alternative for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.