Observational studyBMC gastroenterology2025
Comparing the bowel cleansing efficacy between sodium picosulfate vs. 2L polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution for colonoscopy: a prospective observational study.
Observational study in BMC gastroenterology, 2025. 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.
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
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the bowel cleansing efficacy, adverse reactions, and patient compliance of two low-volume bowel preparation regimens, sodium picosulfate (PICO) and 2 L polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (2 L PEG-ELS).
methodsThis single-center, prospective observational trial was conducted at the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Center of The Third People's Hospital of Chengdu between May and October 2023. Patients undergoing colonoscopy were enrolled, with the primary outcome being the rate of adequate bowel cleansing, as assessed by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) with three segments scoring ≥ 2. Secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate, adverse reactions, patient compliance, and the BBPS total and segment scores.
resultsA total of 5423 patients were included, divided into the PICO group (n = 739) and the 2 L PEG-ELS group (n = 4684) based on the bowel preparation regimen they chose. There were no statistically significant differences between the PICO and 2 L PEG-ELS groups in adequate bowel cleansing rate (92.2% vs. 91.3%, P = 0.437) and polyp detection rate (42.2% vs. 45.5%, P = 0.096). However, the PICO group achieved a better performance in the BBPS scores of the total [(6.90 ± 1.19) vs. (6.81 ± 1.14), P = 0.016] and the right colon [(2.15 ± 0.53) vs. (2.11 ± 0.51), P = 0.005] compared to the 2 L PEG-ELS group. In terms of adverse reactions, the 2 L PEG-ELS group reported more nausea (11.7% vs. 5.7%, P < 0.001) and the PICO group reported more sleep disturbances (24.5% vs. 14.6%, P < 0.001), but the willingness to repeat the procedure with the same regimen was similar high in the 2 L PEG-ELS and PICO groups (99% vs. 99.2%, P = 0.588).
conclusionIn this prospective observational study, both PICO and 2 L PEG-ELS are safe and effective options for bowel cleansing in the Chinese population.
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.