ArticleClinical endoscopy2020
Comparison of Oral Sulfate Solution and Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid on the Efficacy of Bowel Preparation.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oral sulfate solution benefits polyp and adenoma detection during colonoscopy: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2022Pooled it
- A randomized, controlled trial of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Trial
- Efficacy of Oral Sulfate Tablet and 2 L-Polyethylene Glycol With Ascorbic Acid for Bowel Preparation: A Prospective Randomized KASID Multicenter Trial.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Trial
- Korean clinical practice guidelines for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Application of oral sulfate solution combined with linaclotide in bowel preparation for colonoscopy.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerance of Split Dose Oral Sulfate Solution Versus Split-Dose Polyethylene Glycol Versus Single Dose Polyethylene Glycol for Colonoscopy Preparation: A Prospective Randomized Study.Middle East journal of digestive diseases · 2025Article
- Observation of the application effect of low-volume polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ELS) combined with ascorbic acid tablets in bowel preparation for colonoscopy in hospitalized patients.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Oral Sulfate Solution is as Effective as 2 L Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid.Clinical endoscopy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsThe quality of bowel preparation is one of the quality indicators for colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of oral sulfate solution (OSS) and polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (PEG-AA) for bowel preparation.
methodsThe study involved 167 patients who underwent diagnostic colonoscopies. Inadequate bowel preparation was defined as any score of ≤1 in each colon section based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare the efficacy of OSS and PEG-AA. Subgroup analyses were performed based on patient characteristics.
resultsOverall, 106 (63.5%) patients received OSS, and 61 (36.5%) patients received PEG-AA. The rate of inadequate bowel preparation was 12.3% in patients receiving OSS and 32.8% in patients receiving PEG-AA (p=0.001). OSS (odds ratio [OR] = 0.26; p=0.003) and morning examination (OR=0.11; p=0.038) were significantly associated with efficient bowel preparation. The efficacy of OSS compared with PEG-AA was only significant in patients ≥50 years of age vs. <50 years of age (OR=0.13; p=0.001 vs. OR=0.96; p=0.959) and female vs. male patients (OR=0.06; p=0.002 vs. OR=0.58; p=0.339).
conclusionOSS was significantly more efficient for bowel preparation than PEG-AA, especially in patients ≥50 years of age and female patients. Morning examination led to a good quality of bowel preparation, irrespective of the preparation regimen.
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.