ArticleCancers2025
Impact of Bowel Cleansing on Polyp and Adenoma Detection Rate: Post-Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Cancers, 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
- Management of Large Non-Pedunculated Polyps of the Colon: Practice-Oriented Answers to Clinical Questions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the impact of bowel cleansing quality on polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) and explore predictors of lesion detection rate in patients undergoing colonoscopy.
methodsThis is a post-hoc analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing 1L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (1L PEG+ASC) vs. 4L PEG as bowel preparation for colonoscopy.
resultsPDR was significantly higher (35.6% vs. 18.5%,
conclusionsThis post-hoc analysis of a RCT showed that excellent cleansing (BBPS = 9) over high-quality cleansing (BBPS = 7-8) does not significantly improve PDR or ADR. Neither cleansing success nor preparation types were independently associated with ADR. Compliance with bowel preparation, timing of colonoscopy and withdrawal time are key elements for adequate ADR with potential implications for reducing interval colorectal cancer.
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.