Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35562657›Full record

ArticleBMC gastroenterology2022

Effects of bowel preparation on intestinal bacterial associated urine and faecal metabolites and the associated faecal microbiome.

Sam T R Powles, Kate I Gallagher, Leo W L Chong, James L Alexander, Benjamin H Mullish, Lucy C Hicks, Julie A K McDonald, Julian R Marchesi, Horace R T Williams, Timothy R Orchard

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The Effects and Adverse Reactions of Different Bowel Cleansers on Gut Microbiota After Colonoscopy.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sam T R PowlesDepartment of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, St. Mary's Hospital, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK. s.powles@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5945-7409
Kate I GallagherDepartment of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, St. Mary's Hospital, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Leo W L ChongDepartment of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, St. Mary's Hospital, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK.
James L AlexanderDepartment of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, St. Mary's Hospital, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Benjamin H MullishDepartment of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, St. Mary's Hospital, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Lucy C HicksDepartment of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, St. Mary's Hospital, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Julie A K McDonaldDepartment of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, St. Mary's Hospital, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Julian R MarchesiDepartment of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, St. Mary's Hospital, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Horace R T WilliamsDepartment of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, St. Mary's Hospital, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Timothy R OrchardDepartment of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, St. Mary's Hospital, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBSt Mary's Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUrinary and faecal metabolic profiling have been extensively studied in gastrointestinal diseases as potential diagnostic markers, and to enhance our understanding of the intestinal microbiome in the pathogenesis these conditions. The impact of bowel cleansing on the microbiome has been investigated in several studies, but limited to just one study on the faecal metabolome.

aimTo compare the effects of bowel cleansing on the composition of the faecal microbiome, and the urine and faecal metabolome.

methodsUrine and faecal samples were obtained from eleven patients undergoing colonoscopy at baseline, and then at day 3 and week 6 after colonoscopy. 16S rRNA gene sequencing was used to analyse changes in the microbiome, and metabonomic analysis was performed using proton nuclear magnetic resonance (

resultsMicrobiomic analysis demonstrated a reduction in alpha diversity (Shannon index) between samples taken at baseline and three days following bowel cleansing (p = 0.002), and there was no significant difference between samples at baseline and six weeks post colonoscopy. Targeted and non-targeted analysis of urinary and faecal bacterial associated metabolites showed no significant impact following bowel cleansing.

conclusionsBowel cleansing causes a temporary disturbance in bacterial alpha diversity measured in faeces, but no significant changes in the faecal and urine metabolic profiles, suggesting that overall the faecal microbiome and its associated metabolome is resistant to the effects of an induced osmotic diarrhoea.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeMicrobiotaFecesHumansIntestinesRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16SBowel cleansingColonoscopyInflammatory bowel diseaseMetabolomicsMetabonomicsMicrobiome

Identifiers

PMID35562657
PMCPMC9101932
OpenAlexW4280574280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.