ArticleClinical and experimental gastroenterology2018
Real-world comparison of the effectiveness and safety of different bowel preparation agents.
Article in Clinical and experimental gastroenterology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2022Pooled it
- Acute Gastropathy Associated with Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy.The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2024Article
- Serum electrolytes, osmolality, and cleansing quality after bowel prep for colonoscopy with a PEG solution containing ascorbic acid and electrolytes.International journal of colorectal disease · 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
- Efficacy and safety of a ready-to-drink bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsProper bowel cleansing is necessary prior to colonoscopy, but poor tolerability to bowel preparation agents may increase the odds of poor cleansing and incomplete screenings. The aim of this study was to evaluate the real-world effectiveness and safety of bowel preparation agents.
methodsClaims data were extracted for individuals who had a screening colonoscopy from July 1, 2012, to June 30, 2015, were ≥18 years of age, and who could be observed ≥6 months before and ≥3 months after the screening. Data were stratified by agent class, including over-the-counter (OTC), low-volume (LV), and high-volume (HV) agents. Rates of incomplete screenings, repeat screenings, and hospitalizations were reported. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to compare outcomes for sodium picosulfate, magnesium oxide, and citric acid (P/MC) vs other agents.
resultsOf 2.8 million individuals, 71.5% were average risk and 28.5% were high risk for colorectal cancer. Rates of use were 2.8% for P/MC, 30.1% for other LV agents, 9.4% for HV agents, and 56.6% for OTC agents. All individuals who used P/MC had significantly lower odds of incomplete screenings compared to those who used other LV agents or HV agents (
conclusionP/MC was associated with lower rates of incomplete colonoscopy and higher rates of repeat screenings, suggesting it was better tolerated than other agents. OTC agents were associated with higher rates of hospitalizations.
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.