ArticleUnited European gastroenterology journal2023
Efficacy of different bowel preparation regimen volumes for colorectal cancer screening and compliance with European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performance measures.
Article in United European gastroenterology journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06722209 (Investigation of the Effect of Different Same-day Colonoscopic Bowel Preparation Procedures on Patient Compliance, Tolerability, and Bowel Cleansing), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
Investigation of the Effect of Different Same-day Colonoscopic Bowel Preparation Procedures on Patient Compliance, Tolerability, and Bowel Cleansing: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oral sulfate-based versus low-volume polyethylene glycol-ascorbate regimens for colonoscopy preparation in the geriatric population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Updated bowel preparation regimens for colonoscopy: benefits and drawbacks.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Comparison of the Effectiveness of Three Different Combinations for Colonoscopy Preparation: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation to assist bowel cleansing: study protocol for a single-center, single-blind, randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Comparing the bowel cleansing efficacy between sodium picosulfate vs. 2L polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution for colonoscopy: a prospective observational study.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Observational
- Think-Aloud Testing of a Companion App for Colonoscopy Examinations: Usability Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Oral bowel cleansers and ischemic colitis risk: A real-world disproportionality analysis.PloS one · 2025Article
- Efficacy of different bowel preparation regimen volumes for colorectal cancer screening and compliance with European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performance measures.United European gastroenterology journal · 2023Article
- Evaluation of parameters influencing the quality of colon preparation with a split-dose regimen of sulfate salts.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious volumes of bowel preparation are used in clinical practice. There is conflicting data on the effectiveness of individual regimens. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and compliance of currently used bowel preparations with the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) performance measures using data of the Dutch nationwide colorectal cancer screening (CRC) program.
methodsIn a prospective, multicenter endoscopy database, we identified all CRC screening colonoscopies performed in 15 Dutch endoscopy centers from 2016 to 2020. We excluded procedures without documented bowel preparation or the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score. Bowel preparation regimens were categorized into three groups, that is, 4-L (polyethylene glycol (PEG)), 2-L (2-L PEG with ascorbic acid) and ≤1-L volumes (sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate, 1L-PEG with sodium sulfate and ascorbic acid or oral sulfate solution). European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performance measures included adequate BBPS score (≥6) (>90%), cecal intubation rate (CIR, >90%), adenoma detection rate (ADR, >25%) and polyp detection rate (PDR, >40%). Logistic regression was performed to identify predictive factors for adequate BBPS and patient discomfort.
resultsA total of 39,042 CRC screening colonoscopies were included. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores, CIR, ADR and PDR for 4L, 2L and ≤1L regimens all met the minimum ESGE performance measures standards. However, an adequate BBPS score was more frequently seen with 2L regimens (98.0%) as compared to 4L (97.1%) and ≤1L regimens (97.0%) (p < 0.001), respectively. In addition, CIR was higher for ≤1L (98.4%) versus 4L (97.7%) and 2L (97.9%) regimens (p = 0.001), ADR higher for lower volume (≤1L (60.0%) and 2L (61.2)) versus higher volume (4L (58.6%)) regimens (p < 0.001), and PDR higher for ≤1L (70.0%) and 2L (70.8%) versus 4L (67.2%) regimens (p < 0.001). Boston Bowel Preparation Scale for ≤1L regimens was higher when combined with bisacodyl (97.3%) than without (95.6%) (p < 0.001). Overall, bisacodyl use was independently associated with higher patient discomfort (odds ratios = 1.47, confidence intervals = 1.26-1.72).
conclusionsDespite variations in bowel preparation volumes, all regimens meet the minimum ESGE performance measures for bowel preparation and other quality parameters. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale can be further improved if ultra low volume regimens are combined with bisacodyl. The choice for either bowel preparation volume can therefore be based on volume-tolerance and patient preference.
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.