Observational studyUnited European gastroenterology journal2019
Impact of high-volume, intermediate-volume and low-volume bowel preparation on colonoscopy quality and patient satisfaction: An observational study.
Observational study in United European gastroenterology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk prediction models for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2026Pooled it
- 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
- Comparison of 1L Adjuvant Auxiliary Preparations with 2L Solely Polyethylene Glycol plus Ascorbic Acid Regime for Bowel Cleaning: A Meta-analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials.BioMed research international · 2021Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of sodium phosphate powder for bowel cleansing in patients aged 50-70 years: a randomised, multicentre, single-blind trial.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Trial
- A Machine Learning-Based Clinical Tool for Predicting Inadequate Bowel Preparation: Development and Validation.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Novel regimen for colonoscopy bowel preparation with oral lactulose: a prospective comparative study.Clinical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Vitamin drinks improve palatability and reduce adverse events associated to polyethylene glycol electrolyte solutions.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Article
- The Effectiveness and Tolerability of a Very Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy Compared to Low and High-Volume Polyethylene Glycol-Solutions in the Real-Life Setting.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Efficacy and tolerability of high and low-volume bowel preparation compared: A real-life single-blinded large-population study.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2021Article
- Factors predicting improved compliance towards colonoscopy in individuals with positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT).Cancer medicine · 2021Article
- Patient experience with NER1006 as a bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective, multicenter US survey.BMC gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Bring More Data!-A Good Advice? Removing Separation in Logistic Regression by Increasing Sample Size.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although optimal bowel preparation is essential for high-quality screening colonoscopy, documentation of preparation quality, patient satisfaction and adherence is scarce. Aim: The aim of this article is to compare low-volume (LV, 300 ml sodium picosulfate), intermediate-volume (IV, 2 l polyethylene glycol, PEG + ascorbic acid and sodium ascorbate), and high-volume (HV, 4 l PEG) purgatives. Results: A total of 5000 individuals (50.5% women) were enrolled between March 2015 and July 2017 (LV:IV:HV = 3.61:1.54:1). Overall sex- and age-adjusted adenoma detection rate was 25.4% (LV 23.8%, IV 25.4%, HV 29.8%), median age was 59.6 years, and cleansing was successful in 96.8%. Success rates of bowel cleansing were highest with HV (97.6%), followed by LV (97.2%) and IV (95.3%) with OR 2.04 (CI 95% 1.20-3.45, Conclusion: All purgatives investigated showed good bowel cleansing quality results, patient satisfaction and compliance. Improvement in patient information might lead to even higher participation rates in screening colonoscopy since one in five patients stated that bowel preparation worried him or her most prior to colonoscopy.
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.