ArticleIntestinal research2019
Clinical comparison of low-volume agents (oral sulfate solution and sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate) for bowel preparation: the EASE study.
Article in Intestinal research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Trial
- Comparison of Two Types of 1-L Polyethylene Glycol-ascorbic Acid as Colonoscopic Bowel Preparation: A Prospective Randomized Study.The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2022Trial
- Korean clinical practice guidelines for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Updated bowel preparation regimens for colonoscopy: benefits and drawbacks.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Article
- Correlation between Surrogate Quality Indicators for Adenoma Detection Rate and Adenoma Miss Rate in Qualified Colonoscopy, CORE Study: KASID Multicenter Study.Gut and liver · 2022Article
- Quality indicators in colonoscopy: the chasm between ideal and reality.Clinical endoscopy · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsThis study compared the efficacy, compliance, and safety of bowel preparation between sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (SPMC) and oral sulfate solution (OSS).
methodsA prospective randomized multicenter study was performed. Split preparation methods were performed in both groups; the SPMC group, 2 sachets on the day before, and 1 sachet on the day of the procedure, the OSS group, half of the OSS with 1 L of water on both the day before and the day of the procedure. The adenoma detection rate (ADR), adequacy of bowel preparation using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, patient satisfaction on a visual analog scale (VAS), and safety were compared between the 2 groups.
resultsThis study analyzed 229 patients (121 in the SPMC group and 108 in the OSS group). ADR showed no differences between 2 groups (51.7% vs. 41.7%, P> 0.05). The mean total BBPS score (7.95 vs. 8.11, P> 0.05) and adequate bowel preparation rate (94.9% vs. 96.3%, P> 0.05) were similar between the 2 groups. The mean VAS score for taste (7.62 vs. 6.87, P=0.006) was significantly higher in the SPMC group than in the OSS group. There were no significant differences in any other safety variables between the 2 groups except nausea symptom (36.1% vs. 20.3%, P=0.008).
conclusionsBowel preparation for colonoscopy using low volume OSS and SPMC yielded similar ADRs and levels of efficacy. SPMC had higher levels of satisfaction for taste and feeling than did OSS.
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.