ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Efficacy and safety of lubiprostone combined with polyethylene glycol electrolyte powder for bowel preparation in patients classified by risk level: a randomised trial.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Objective: This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of lubiprostone combined with polyethylene glycol (PEG) electrolyte powder for bowel preparation in patients classified by risk level. Methods: The following factors were considered to be associated with inadequate bowel preparation: constipation (meeting Rome IV criteria), BMI > 25 kg/m², history of inadequate bowel preparation, colorectal surgery, diabetes, stroke, or spinal cord injury, Parkinson's disease, and use of tricyclic antidepressants or anesthetics. A total of 424 patients scheduled for colonoscopy were included and categorized into high-risk and low-risk groups based on bowel preparation risk factors. These patients were then randomly assigned to block groups. The high-risk group was further subdivided into the H-PEG subgroup (PEG, 99 cases) and the H-PEG+L subgroup (PEG + lubiprostone, 105 cases), while the low-risk group was divided into the L-PEG subgroup (PEG, 103 cases) and the L-PEG+L subgroup (PEG + lubiprostone, 102 cases). The following parameters were assessed in each group: time to first bowel movement, total bowel movement count, adverse reactions during preparation, insertion and withdrawal durations, Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores, rate of adequate bowel preparation, colorectal adenoma detection rates, and willingness to undergo repeated bowel preparation. Results: During bowel preparation, the H-PEG+L subgroup exhibited a shorter time to first bowel movement and a higher total bowel movement count than the H-PEG subgroup ( Conclusion: Among patients classified as high risk for inadequate bowel preparation, the combination of lubiprostone and PEG electrolyte powder significantly enhances BBPS scores and bowel cleanliness compared to PEG electrolyte powder alone, without increasing the incidence of adverse events, and is more acceptable for repeated bowel preparation. However, in patients classified as low-risk, the addition of lubiprostone does not provides additional benefits. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov, identifier ChiCTR2400088155.
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.