ArticleEndoscopy2026
Comparing low volume versus intermediate volume bowel preparation and their impact on work and tolerability: an open-label, noninferiority randomized controlled trial.
Article in Endoscopy, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Bowel preparation is essential for colonoscopy but may deter patients. Although low volume laxatives are better tolerated, their impact on patient-reported outcomes remains unclear. We compared low and intermediate volume bowel preparation and assessed their impact on tolerability, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and work. Methods: We conducted an open-label, noninferiority randomized trial in four Dutch hospitals. Patients were randomized to 2 L polyethylene glycol with ascorbate (2L PEG+Asc) or 1 L with added sodium sulfate (1L PEG+Asc). Before and after preparation, patients completed validated questionnaires on productivity, tolerability, and HRQoL. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with adequate bowel preparation, aiming to demonstrate noninferiority of 1L PEG+Asc vs. 2L PEG+Asc (5% noninferiority margin). Secondary outcomes included willingness to repeat, with exploratory analysis of associated factors using multivariable logistic regression, change in HRQoL scores, tolerability, and work-related impact. Results: We included 467 patients (2L PEG+Asc, n = 229; 1L PEG+Asc, n = 238). 1L PEG+Asc was noninferior to 2L: adequate cleansing rate, 96.1% (95%CI 92.6% to 98.0%) vs. 96.4% (95%CI 93.0% to 98.3%; P = 0.84; Δ −0.4, 95%CI −4.0 to 3.3). More patients in the 1L PEG+Asc group were willing to repeat the preparation (59.9% vs. 48.3%; P = 0.04), with tolerability the most influential factor (odds ratios 0.05 and 0.22 for difficult or fair vs. good tolerability, adjusted for symptoms, satisfaction, and 1L/2L PEG+Asc). No clinically relevant changes in HRQoL were observed. Absenteeism and impaired work productivity occurred in 7.9% and 12.3%, respectively, with no between-group differences. Conclusions: Bowel preparation with 1L PEG+Asc is noninferior to 2L PEG+Asc and associated with higher willingness to repeat. Tolerability is fundamental for effective cleansing and reducing colonoscopy barriers.
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.