Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37462794›Full record

Trial reportJournal of gastroenterology2023

Preoperative mechanical bowel preparation using conventional versus hyperosmolar polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution before laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer (TLUMP test): a phase III, multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.

Tadashi Yoshida, Shigenori Homma, Nobuki Ichikawa, Yosuke Ohno, Yoichi Miyaoka, Hiroki Matsui, Ken Imaizumi, Hiroyuki Ishizu, Tohru Funakoshi, Masahiko Koike and 6 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter StudyClinical Trial, Phase III
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of gastroenterology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

16 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Tadashi YoshidaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery I, Hokkaido University Hospital, N14, W5, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-8648, Japan.
Shigenori HommaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery I, Hokkaido University Hospital, N14, W5, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-8648, Japan. homma.s@nifty.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9238-9970
Nobuki IchikawaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery I, Hokkaido University Hospital, N14, W5, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-8648, Japan.
Yosuke OhnoDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery I, Hokkaido University Hospital, N14, W5, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-8648, Japan.
Yoichi MiyaokaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery I, Hokkaido University Hospital, N14, W5, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-8648, Japan.
Hiroki MatsuiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery I, Hokkaido University Hospital, N14, W5, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-8648, Japan.
Ken ImaizumiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery I, Hokkaido University Hospital, N14, W5, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-8648, Japan.
Hiroyuki IshizuDepartment of Surgery, Sapporo-Kosei General Hospital, N3, E8, Chuo-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan.
Tohru FunakoshiDepartment of Surgery, Sapporo-Kosei General Hospital, N3, E8, Chuo-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan.
Masahiko KoikeDepartment of Surgery, KKR Sapporo Medical Center, Hiragishi 1-jo, 6-chome, Toyohira-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan.
Hirofumi KonDepartment of Surgery, KKR Sapporo Medical Center, Hiragishi 1-jo, 6-chome, Toyohira-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan.
Yo KamiizumiDepartment of Surgery, Iwamizawa Municipal General Hospital, 9-jo, W7, Iwamizawa, Hokkaido, Japan.
Yasuhiro TaniDepartment of Surgery, Iwamizawa Municipal General Hospital, 9-jo, W7, Iwamizawa, Hokkaido, Japan.
Yoichi Minagawa ItoBiostatistics Division, Clinical Research and Medical Innovation Center, Hokkaido University Hospital, N14, W5, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan.
Kazufumi OkadaBiostatistics Division, Clinical Research and Medical Innovation Center, Hokkaido University Hospital, N14, W5, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan.
Akinobu TaketomiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery I, Hokkaido University Hospital, N14, W5, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-8648, Japan.
Hokkaido University Hospital · JPSapporo Kosei General Hospital · JPMiwa Hospital · JPNTT Medical Center · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA hyperosmolar ascorbic acid-enriched polyethylene glycol-electrolyte (ASC-PEG) lavage solution ensures excellent bowel preparation before colonoscopy; however, no study has demonstrated the efficacy of this lavage solution before surgery. This study aimed to establish the non-inferiority of ASC-PEG to the standard polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS) in patients undergoing laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer.

methodsThis was a prospective, single-blind, multicenter, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority clinical trial. Overall, 188 patients scheduled for laparoscopic colorectal resection for single colorectal adenocarcinomas were randomly assigned to undergo preparation with different PEG solutions between August 2017 and April 2020 at four hospitals in Japan. Participants received ASC-PEG (Group A) or PEG-ELS (Group B) preoperatively. The primary endpoint was the ratio of successful bowel preparations using the modified Aronchick scale, defined as "excellent" or "good."

resultsAfter exclusion, 86 and 87 patients in Groups A and B, respectively, completed the study, and their data were analyzed. ASC-PEG was not inferior to PEG-ELS in terms of effective bowel preparation prior to laparoscopic colorectal resection (0.93 vs. 0.92; 95% confidence interval, - 0.078 to 0.099, p = 0.007). The total volume of cleansing solution intake was lower in Group A than in Group B (1757.0 vs. 1970.1 mL). Two and three severe postoperative adverse events occurred in Groups A and B, respectively. Patient tolerance of the two solutions was almost equal.

conclusionsASC-PEG is effective for preoperative bowel preparation in patients undergoing laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer and is non-inferior to PEG-ELS.

Indexed as

CatharticsColorectal NeoplasmsAscorbic AcidColonoscopyElectrolytesHumansPolyethylene GlycolsProspective StudiesSingle-Blind MethodTherapeutic IrrigationAscorbic AcidCatharticsElectrolytesPolyethylene GlycolsBowel preparationColorectal cancerLaparoscopyPolyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution

Identifiers

PMID37462794
OpenAlexW4384626568

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.