Trial reportBMC gastroenterology2023
High-dose polyethylene glycol-3350 and gatorade solutions for patients with previous inadequate bowel preparations for colonoscopy are safe and effective.
Trial report in BMC gastroenterology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02661750 (Safety and Efficacy of High Dose Bowel Preparation Solutions for Patients With Difficult To Clean Colons For Colonoscopy), which is not on this 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.
Safety and Efficacy of High Dose Bowel Preparation Solutions for Patients With Difficult To Clean Colons For Colonoscopy
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prospective, Observational Study of the Efficacy, and Tolerability of a Same-Day, Low-Volume D-Sorbitol, Ascorbic Acid, and Sodium Picosulfate Regimen for Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Observational
- Splitting the Difference: What Is the Best Colonoscopy Prep?Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Article
- Comparing the bowel cleansing efficacy between sodium picosulfate vs. 2L polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution for colonoscopy: a prospective observational study.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Observational
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy remains an issue resulting in lower adenoma detection rates and increased cost. We assessed the efficacy, safety and tolerability of high-dose bowel preparations in subjects who previously had an inadequate colonoscopy preparation.
methodsWe performed a multi-step prospective trial of high-dose bowel preparations with subjects assigned to the dose higher than their previous inadequate preparation. Step 1: 1.5 times the standard-dose of polyethylene glycol 3350 (PEG, 459 g) and Gatorade; and Step 2: 2.0 times the standard-dose of PEG (612 g) and Gatorade, both were given as extended split-dose preparations. 69 outpatients consumed their preparation before a morning colonoscopy. The primary endpoint was colon cleanliness assessed by the Chicago bowel preparation scale (BPS). Safety was assessed by comparing a baseline basic metabolic panel (BMP) to a post-cleansing BMP. Patients with no history of inadequate colon cleansing who consumed standard doses of PEG (306 g to 357 g) and Gatorade were used as a comparison group. Tolerability of the bowel preparation was assessed using a subject-questionnaire.
resultsWhen compared to controls consuming standard-dose bowel preparations, subjects consuming high-dose preparations had no statistically significant difference in colon cleanliness as measured by the modified or total Chicago BPS scores or differences in tolerability. Baseline and post-cleaning BMPs were not significantly different other than the BUN falling (p < 0.0001) after the preparation.
conclusionsThe multi-step high-dose bowel cleansing protocol proved highly efficacious, safe and well tolerated in subjects who previously had an inadequate colonoscopy preparation.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02661750.
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.