Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38572443›Full record

ArticleGE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology2024

The Effect of Oral Simethicone in a Bowel Preparation in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Colonoscopy Setting: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Mafalda João, Miguel Areia, Susana Alves, Luís Elvas, Daniel Brito, Sandra Saraiva, Ana Teresa Cadime

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07674160 (Effects of Simethicone on Colon Preparation in Water Exchange Colonoscopies), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT07674160 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Effects of Simethicone on Colon Preparation in Water Exchange Colonoscopies: a Randomized Controlled Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorDalin Tzu Chi General HospitalRan2026 to 2028Enrolled180ConditionsQuality of Bowel PreparationArmsSimethicone with PEG, PEG
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Mafalda JoãoGastroenterology Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Miguel AreiaGastroenterology Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Susana AlvesGastroenterology Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Luís ElvasGastroenterology Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Daniel BritoGastroenterology Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Sandra SaraivaGastroenterology Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Ana Teresa CadimeGastroenterology Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Current guidelines suggest adding oral simethicone to bowel preparation for colonoscopy. However, its effect on key quality indicators for screening colonoscopy remains unclear. The primary aim was to assess the rate of adequate bowel preparation in split-dose high-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG), with or without simethicone. Methods: This is an endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial, including patients scheduled for colonoscopy after a positive faecal immunochemical test. Patients were randomly assigned to 4 L of PEG split dose (PEG) or 4 L of PEG split dose plus 500 mg oral simethicone (PEG + simethicone). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, the preparation quality regarding bubbles using the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS), ADR, CIR, and the intraprocedural use of simethicone were recorded. Results: We included 191 and 197 patients in the PEG + simethicone group and the PEG group, respectively. When comparing the PEG + simethicone group versus the PEG group, no significant differences in adequate bowel preparation rates (97% vs. 93%; Conclusion: Adding oral simethicone to a split-bowel preparation resulted in a lower incidence of bubbles and a lower intraprocedural use of simethicone but no further improvement on the preparation quality or ADR.

Indexed as

Bowel preparationColorectal cancerScreeningSimethicone

Identifiers

PMID38572443
PMCPMC10987070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.