Trial reportJournal of digestive diseases2020
Evaluation of the performance of two neutral oral contrast agents in computed tomography enterography: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of digestive diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the performance of two neutral oral contrast agents in computed tomography enterography: A randomized controlled trial.Journal of digestive diseases · 2020Trial
- Comparison of the Efficacy of Diluted Polyethylene Glycol and Low-Density (0.1% w/v) Barium Sulfate Suspension for CT Enterography.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2023Article
- Article
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
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the performances, tolerability and acceptability of mannitol and polyethylene glycol (PEG) as oral contrast agents in patients undergoing computed tomography enterography (CTE).
methodsPatients aged 18-75 years indicated for CTE were randomized to receive either mannitol or PEG as contrast agents. The coronal reconstructed images of each abdominal quadrant were assessed for maximum distention, proportion of distended bowel loops, presence of inhomogeneous contents and visibility of the small bowel wall. Overall subjective imaging quality assessment and patients' tolerability and acceptability were recorded.
resultsSeventy patients were enrolled and randomized into two groups. In the per-protocol analysis, no significant differences in imaging quality was found in bowel distention maximum diameter, wall visibility and intestinal homogeneity (all P > 0.05). The mean nausea score was lower in the mannitol group (0 [0-0] vs 1.0 [0-3.0], P < 0.001). Mannitol was superior to PEG in taste (9.0 [8.0-10.0] vs 7.0 [5.0-8.0], P < 0.001), patients' willingness to reuse the drug (9.0 [8.0-10.0] vs 8.0 [7.0-9.0], P = 0.036), satisfaction (9.0 [8.0-10.0] vs 8.0 [7.0-9.0], P = 0.022) and ease of completion (9.0 [8.0-9.3] vs 8.0 [6.5-9.0], P = 0.030).
conclusionsBoth mannitol and PEG provided good bowel distention and visualization of the bowel wall. However, mannitol was significantly superior to PEG in patients' tolerability and acceptability.
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.