Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34114154›Full record

Trial reportDigestive diseases and sciences2022

Single-Day Low-Residue Diet Prior to Colonoscopy Demonstrates Improved Bowel Preparation Quality and Patient Tolerance over Clear Liquid Diet: A Randomized, Single-Blinded, Dual-Center Trial.

Jason B Samarasena, Nabil El Hage Chehade, Alexander Abadir, Allen Yu, Elise Tran, Daniel Mai, Daniel Thieu, Gregory Albers, Nimisha K Parekh, William E Karnes and 2 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Patient-reported outcomes and measures applied in individuals undergoing colonoscopy surveillance for colorectal cancer: a scoping review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jason B SamarasenaH. H. Chao Comprehensive Digestive Disease Center, Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, Irvine, 101 The City Drive, Orange, CA, 92868, USA. jsamaras@hs.uci.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-2981-3078
Nabil El Hage ChehadeH. H. Chao Comprehensive Digestive Disease Center, Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, Irvine, 101 The City Drive, Orange, CA, 92868, USA.
Alexander AbadirH. H. Chao Comprehensive Digestive Disease Center, Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, Irvine, 101 The City Drive, Orange, CA, 92868, USA.
Allen YuH. H. Chao Comprehensive Digestive Disease Center, Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, Irvine, 101 The City Drive, Orange, CA, 92868, USA.
Elise TranH. H. Chao Comprehensive Digestive Disease Center, Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, Irvine, 101 The City Drive, Orange, CA, 92868, USA.
Daniel MaiH. H. Chao Comprehensive Digestive Disease Center, Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, Irvine, 101 The City Drive, Orange, CA, 92868, USA.
Daniel ThieuH. H. Chao Comprehensive Digestive Disease Center, Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, Irvine, 101 The City Drive, Orange, CA, 92868, USA.
Gregory AlbersH. H. Chao Comprehensive Digestive Disease Center, Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, Irvine, 101 The City Drive, Orange, CA, 92868, USA.
Nimisha K ParekhH. H. Chao Comprehensive Digestive Disease Center, Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, Irvine, 101 The City Drive, Orange, CA, 92868, USA.
William E KarnesH. H. Chao Comprehensive Digestive Disease Center, Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, Irvine, 101 The City Drive, Orange, CA, 92868, USA.
Kenneth ChangH. H. Chao Comprehensive Digestive Disease Center, Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, Irvine, 101 The City Drive, Orange, CA, 92868, USA.
M Mazen JamalDepartment of Gastroenterology, Long Beach Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Long Beach, CA, USA.
University of California, Irvine · USVA Long Beach Healthcare System · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsPatients often refer to bowel preparation and associated dietary restrictions as the greatest deterrents to having a colonoscopy completed or performed. Large studies comparing a low-residue diet (LRD) and a clear liquid diet (CLD) are still limited. The aim of this study is to compare LRD and CLD with regard to bowel preparation quality, tolerance, and satisfaction among a diverse patient population.

methodsThis study is a dual-center, randomized, single-blinded, prospective trial involving adult patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy at the University of California Irvine Medical Center and an affiliated Veterans Administration hospital. Patients were randomized to consume either a CLD or a planned LRD for the full day prior to colonoscopy. Both groups consumed 4L split-dosed PEG-ELS. The adequacy of bowel preparation was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS). Adequate preparation was defined as a BBPS ≥ 6 with no individual segment less than a score of 2. Hunger and fatigue pre - and post-procedure were graded on a ten-point scale. Nausea, vomiting, bloating, abdominal cramping, overall discomfort, satisfaction with the diet, willingness to repeat the same preparation and overall experience were assessed.

resultsA total of 195 subjects who underwent colonoscopy from October 2014 to October 2017 were included. The mean BBPS for the LRD and CLD groups was 8.38 and 7.93, respectively (p = 0.1). There was a significantly higher number of adequate preparations in the LRD group compared to CLD (p = 0.05). Evening hunger scores just before starting the bowel preparation were significantly lower in the LRD than the CLD group, 2.81 versus 5.97, respectively (p = 0.006). Subjects in the LRD group showed significantly less nausea (p = 0.047) and bloating (p = 0.04). Symptom scores for vomiting, abdominal cramping, and overall discomfort were similar between the groups. Satisfaction with diet was significantly higher in the LRD group than CLD, 72% versus 37.66%, respectively (p < 0.001). The overall colonoscopy experience and the satisfaction with the preparation itself were also better reported in the LRD group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively).

conclusionsThis study, which included a diverse group of patients, demonstrated that patients using a LRD before colonoscopy achieve a bowel preparation quality that is superior to patients on a CLD restriction. This study shows that a low-residue diet improves patient satisfaction and results in significantly better tolerability of bowel preparation. As a less restrictive dietary regimen, the low-residue diet may help improve patient participation in colorectal cancer screening programs.

Indexed as

CatharticsPreoperative CareColonoscopyDietHumansNauseaPatient SatisfactionPolyethylene GlycolsProspective StudiesVomitingCatharticsPolyethylene GlycolsAdenoma detection rateBowel preparationClear liquid dietColonoscopyLow-residue dietPatient satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID34114154
OpenAlexW3169840894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.