ArticleJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology2020
Does It work in Clinical Practice? A Comparison of Colonoscopy Cleansing Effectiveness in Clinical Practice Versus Efficacy from Selected Prospective Trials.
Article in Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06051955 (Evaluation of an Oral Sodium Sulfate Solution for Patients With Prior Difficult or Incomplete Cleansing, a Progressive Case Series.), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Evaluation of an Oral Sodium Sulfate Solution for Patients With Prior Difficult or Incomplete Cleansing, a Progressive Case Series.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdequate bowel preparation is essential for a high-quality colonoscopy. Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated bowel preparation protocols, including split-dose and low-volume regimens. However, RCTs are conducted in an ideal, controlled setting, and translation of trial results to clinical practice is challenging. In this study, we compared the quality of bowel preparations of real-world patients from clinical practice with those enrolled in several prospective trials.
methodsBowel preparation quality, defined by the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS), from four RCTs and one prospective trial were compared with two observational diary studies. Bowel preparations were polyethylene glycol preparation (PEG) or sodium picosulfate plus magnesium citrate (P/MC) taken via traditional or split-dose timing regimen. Age, sex, average number of bowel movements per day, comorbidities, colonoscopy indication and colonoscopy completion rates were also collected.
resultsPatients enrolled in prospective trials had a better OBPS by one point when compared with those in observational clinical practice studies (P<0.049), after controlling for age, sex, colonoscopy indication and type of bowel preparation used. We also found that each 10-year increase in age was associated with a 0.2 point increase in OBPS (P=0.008), and men were associated with a 0.5 increase in OBPS when compared with women P=0.014).
conclusionPatients from clinical practice have higher OBPS than prospective trial patients. Increased age and male sex were also associated with increased OBPS. We believe increased patient motivation and education around bowel preparation regimen plays an important role in the success of bowel preparations.
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.