ArticleDEN open2024
Is bowel preparation necessary for early colonoscopy in patients with suspected colonic diverticular bleeding?: A multicenter retrospective study with propensity score matching analysis.
Article in DEN open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: There are few reports on bowel preparation for early colonoscopy in patients with suspected colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB). We aim to clarify in a retrospective, multicenter study. Methods: In a multicenter retrospective cohort study at 10 institutions, we analyzed clinical features of patients diagnosed with CDB, who underwent early colonoscopy within 24 h. We compared patients who were prepared with polyethylene glycol lavage (PEL) and those without PEL. We evaluated the effects of PEL for early colonoscopy in patients with suspected CDB. Results: A total of 129 (53%) underwent under preparation with PEL and 113 patients without PEL. The PEL group was younger, had fewer comorbidities, and had better performance status. After adjusting for these variables with propensity score matching, the PEL group had a significantly shorter hospital stay (7.9 ± 4.7 vs. 10.1 ± 5.2 days; Conclusions: PEL may be preferred for early colonoscopy in patients suspected of having CDB.
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.