ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Bisacodyl micro-enema before MRI of rectal tumors: effects on rectum, image quality and patient acceptance.
Article in European radiology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the effects of a bisacodyl micro-enema on rectal physio-morphology, image quality, and patient acceptance when used as preparation before MRI of rectal tumors. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this prospective single-center study, we made an intra-individual comparison of patients with suspected early rectal cancer who all completed MRI without (MRex) and with (MRin) a bisacodyl micro-enema. The width and the anal-oral extension of the submucosal edema in the healthy rectal wall, anal-oral extension of luminal fluid, and rectal distension were registered. Image artifacts were recorded with a figurative visual analog scale (fVAS), and patient acceptance with questionnaires at baseline, after MRex, and MRin. Significance levels were calculated with a t-test, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, or McNemar's test for paired samples and inter-reader agreement with Gwets AC1 statistics.
resultsConsecutively, 50 patients (mean age, 65 years ± 10, 26 men) were included. The median (iqr) summed width of submucosa (MRex, 26 (12) mm, MRin 39 (13) mm, p < 0.01) and anal-oral fluid extension (MRex 0 (0) mm, MRin 134 (91) mm, p < 0.001) increased. Susceptibility artifacts on diffusion weighted imaging (axial plane p ≤ 0.04 and parallel plane p < 0.001) were reduced. No increase in rectal distension, motion artifacts, or side effects was registered, and the patient-reported acceptance remained unchanged.
conclusionBisacodyl significantly increased the submucosal width and extension of intraluminal fluid, did not lead to distension of the rectum, improved image quality, and was well tolerated by the patients. KEY POINTS: Question Bisacodyl micro-enema can improve MRI of early stage-rectal tumors, but the impact on rectal physio-morphology, image quality, and patient acceptance is unknown. Result Bisacodyl micro-enema increased the submucosal width and intraluminal fluid, did not distend the rectum, improved image quality, and was well tolerated by the patients. Clinical relevance Bisacodyl micro-enema represents a reliable preparation before MRI of rectal tumors and can improve imaging of early-stage cancer. This is increasingly important because of the shift toward earlier stages due to screening programs and the growing use of organ-saving treatment.
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.