Trial reportEuropean radiology2019
Patients' experience of screening CT colonography with reduced and full bowel preparation in a randomised trial.
Trial report in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020.European radiology · 2021Guideline
- Comparison of the participation rate between CT colonography and colonoscopy in screening population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.The British journal of radiology · 2020Pooled it
- Effect of dose splitting of a low-volume bowel preparation macrogol-based solution on CT colonography tagging quality.La Radiologia medica · 2022Trial
- A novel volume-reduced CT colonography regimen using hypertonic laxative (polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid): randomized controlled trial.European radiology · 2019Trial
- Optimizing endometriosis detection: a review of technical approaches and interpretative pitfalls.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- CT colonography: can we achieve an adequate bowel preparation without diet restriction?European radiology · 2023Article
- [CT colonography : Technique and indications].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
- Single CT Appointment for Double Lung and Colorectal Cancer Screening: Is the Time Ripe?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Value of multi-slice spiral computerized tomography for diagnosis of synchronous colorectal carcinoma: a retrospective study.The Journal of international medical research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess patients' experience of bowel preparation and procedure for screening CT colonography with reduced (r-CTC) and full cathartic preparation (f-CTC) that showed similar detection rate for advanced neoplasia in a randomised trial.
methodsSix hundred seventy-four subjects undergoing r-CTC and 612 undergoing f-CTC in the SAVE trial were asked to complete two pre-examination questionnaires-(1) Life Orientation Test - Revised (LOT-R) assessing optimism and (2) bowel preparation questionnaire-and a post-examination questionnaire evaluating overall experience of CTC screening test. Items were analysed with chi-square and t test separately and pooled.
resultsLOT-R was completed by 529 (78%) of r-CTC and by 462 (75%) of f-CTC participants and bowel preparation questionnaire by 531 (79%) subjects in the r-CTC group and by 465 (76%) in the f-CTC group. Post-examination questionnaire was completed by 525 (78%) subjects in the r-CTC group and by 453 (74%) in the f-CTC group. LOT-R average score was not different between r-CTC (14.27 ± 3.66) and f-CTC (14.54 ± 3.35) (p = 0.22). In bowel preparation questionnaire, 88% of r-CTC subjects reported no preparation-related symptoms as compared to 70% of f-CTC subjects (p < 0.001). No interference of bowel preparation with daily activities was reported in 80% of subjects in the r-CTC group as compared to 53% of subjects in the f-CTC group (p < 0.001). In post-examination questionnaire, average scores for discomfort of the procedure were not significantly different between r-CTC (3.53 ± 0.04) and f-CTC (3.59 ± 0.04) groups (p = 0.84).
conclusionsReduced bowel preparation is better tolerated than full preparation for screening CT colonography. KEY POINTS: • Reduced bowel preparation is better tolerated than full preparation for screening CT colonography. • Procedure-related discomfort of screening CT colonography is not influenced by bowel preparation. • Males tolerate bowel preparation and CT colonography screening procedure better than females.
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.