Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37808965›Full record

ArticleGastroenterology research and practice2023

The Efficacy of 480 ml Oral Sodium Sulfate for Improving Insufficient Bowel Preparation of Colonoscopy with High-Concentrated Polyethylene Glycol.

Naohisa Yoshida, Yoshikazu Inagaki, Daisuke Hasegawa, Reo Kobayashi, Yuri Tomita, Hikaru Hashimoto, Ryohei Hirose, Osamu Dohi, Ken Inoue, Yasutaka Morimoto and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gastroenterology research and practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Naohisa YoshidaDepartment of Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6167-9705
Yoshikazu InagakiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nishijin Hospital, Kyoto, Japan.
Daisuke HasegawaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Ayabe City Hospital, Kyoto, Japan.
Reo KobayashiDepartment of Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto, Japan.
Yuri TomitaDepartment of Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto, Japan.
Hikaru HashimotoDepartment of Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto, Japan.
Ryohei HiroseDepartment of Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto, Japan.
Osamu DohiDepartment of Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto, Japan.
Ken InoueDepartment of Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto, Japan.
Yasutaka MorimotoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kyoto Saiseikai Hospital, Kyoto, Japan.
Yutaka InadaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kyoto First Red Cross Hospital, Kyoto, Japan.
Takaaki MurakamiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Aiseikai Yamashina Hospital, Kyoto, Japan.
Yoshito ItohDepartment of Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto, Japan.
Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine · JPKyoto City Hospital · JPKyoto first Red Cross hospital · JPNishijin Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Oral sulfate solution (OSS) is used for bowel preparation (BP) during colonoscopy. The way of taking this agent can be used a same-day regimen (only on the day of colonoscopy) and split regimen (the day before and on the day of colonoscopy) for receiving it. In this study, we analyzed the efficacy of a same-day regimen of 480 ml OSS for insufficient bowel preparation (BP) with high-concentrated polyethylene glycol (H-PEG). Materials and Methods: This multicenter retrospective study was conducted from December 2021 to December 2022 at three related institutions on patients aged ≥ 20 years with a fair or poor Aronchick score of BP with 1 l H-PEG in previous colonoscopy. All patients received a low-residual diet and 10 ml of 0.75% picosulfate sodium a day before the colonoscopy and 480 ml of OSS and ≥1 l of water 3 hours before the colonoscopy. We analyzed the rate of improvement with OSS compared to H-PEG and other efficacies, and adverse events (AE). Results: We evaluated 125 cases (77 males) with an average age of 72.1 ± 8.8 years. The completion rate of 480 ml of OSS was 97.6% (122/125). The improvement rate of BP showing good or excellent score with OSS was 70.4% (88/125). Compared OSS with previous H-PEG, the insertion time (min) was 7.0 ± 4.8 vs. 8.1 ± 6.0 ( Conclusions: The same-day regimen of 480 ml OSS effectively improved the insufficient BP of 1 l H-PEG.

Identifiers

PMID37808965
PMCPMC10560111
OpenAlexW4387209745

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.