ArticleCureus2025
Early Versus Late Bowel Preparation for Suspected Acute Diverticular Bleeding: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction Diverticular bleeding (DB) is a significant cause of inpatient gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. We hypothesized that early bowel preparation (EBP) administration would reduce hospital resource utilization and improve outcomes compared to late administration. Methods We retrospectively identified patients admitted with acute DB from January 2019 to July 2023. EBP was given within 24 hours of admission, and late bowel preparation (LBP) was given after 24 hours. Variables examined included length of stay, readmissions for GI bleed, packed red blood cell (pRBC) transfusions, days to resolution, colonoscopy, tagged red blood cell (RBC) scan, and computed tomography (CT) angiographies, using chi-squared and T-tests for statistical analysis. Results One hundred and thirty-four patients were included: EBP (n=51), LBP (n=26), and no bowel preparation (NBP) (n=57). There were no statistically significant differences in baseline variables between groups that received bowel preparation and those who did not. EBP patients underwent fewer colonoscopies (56.86% vs. 84.62%, P=0.01). They had shorter hospital stays (mean 4.82 vs. 5.27 days), faster time to resolution (mean 2.94 vs. 3.58 days), and fewer CT angiograms (19.61% vs. 23.08%), although not statistically significant. EBP patients underwent more tagged RBC scans (37.25% vs. 30.77%, P=0.5727). Readmission rates, number of pRBC transfusions, hemostasis during colonoscopy, and total imaging showed no difference. Conclusion EBP compared to LBP was associated with significantly fewer colonoscopies and a trend toward shorter hospital stays and resolution times, without impacting clinical outcomes such as readmission rates or transfusion needs. The reduction in colonoscopies in the EBP group suggests that EBP may allow clinicians to identify resolved DB quicker and facilitate discharge without unnecessary colonoscopy.
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.