Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41409028›Full record

ReviewClinical endoscopy2026

Updated bowel preparation regimens for colonoscopy: benefits and drawbacks.

Seung Min Hong, Dong Hoon Baek

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Seung Min HongDepartment of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine and Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Korea.
Dong Hoon BaekDepartment of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine and Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Korea.

Funding

Pusan National University Hospital
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Optimal bowel preparation is critical for high-quality colonoscopy and the effective prevention of colorectal cancer. Although traditional high-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) electrolyte lavage solutions are effective and safe, they are frequently limited by poor patient tolerability. To improve adherence, several low- and ultralow-volume PEG-based regimens, particularly 2 L and 1 L PEG plus ascorbate, have demonstrated noninferior efficacy and better patient compliance. Hyperosmotic alternatives, including oral sulfate solution and sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate, provide comparable bowel-cleansing efficacy and are often favored for their improved palatability and tolerability. The recent introduction of oral sulfate tablets offers the convenience of a tablet form while maintaining efficacy similar to that of PEG-based regimens and significantly enhancing tolerability. However, a few cases of gastric mucosal irritation have been reported. Adjunctive simethicone also improves mucosal visibility by reducing intraluminal bubbles. With the growing diversity of bowel preparation options, regimen selection should be tailored to individual patient characteristics, including age, comorbidities, prior experiences, and personal preferences. A personalized evidence-based approach, guided by patient-specific factors and supported by emerging clinical data, can improve adherence, ensure adequate bowel cleansing, and enhance the diagnostic yield and procedural efficiency of colonoscopy.

Indexed as

Bowel preparation regimenColonoscopyPatient-centered careRisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID41409028
PMCPMC13254635

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.