Trial reportBMC gastroenterology2025
A randomized, controlled trial of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.
Trial report in BMC gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oral sulfate-based versus low-volume polyethylene glycol-ascorbate regimens for colonoscopy preparation in the geriatric population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Optimization of Sutab Preparation for Colonoscopy in Gastric Ulcer Cases: A Case Report.Cureus · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe quality of colonoscopy is significantly influenced by the effectiveness of bowel preparation. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of bowel cleansing between a new oral sulfate solution (OSS) and standard polyethylene glycol electrolyte powder (PEG).
methodsThis single center, randomized, superiority study recruited 679 outpatients who were assigned to either the new OSS group (Group A) or standard PEG group (Group B). The quality of bowel cleansing was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and compared between the two groups. Furthermore, data pertaining to the duration of bowel preparation, patient tolerability, and the occurrence of adverse events were also analyzed.
resultsAccording to BBPS scores, group A demonstrated significantly higher bowel preparation cleanliness than group B. Additionally, group A achieved superior bowel cleansing, as evidenced by a greater proportion of patients with BBPS scores ≥ 8 compared to group B (75.3% vs. 55.2%, P < 0.05). No severe adverse events were reported during examinations in either group.
conclusionsThe magnesium sulfate, sodium sulfate, and potassium sulfate concentrated oral solution is a novel, safe, and effective bowel preparation for colonoscopy.
trial registrationThis study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on 20/02/2024 (clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2400081004).
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.