ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2025
Comparing the efficacy of mannitol and polyethylene glycol in treating patients with poor bowel preparation: a randomized controlled clinical study.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05912114 (Effectiveness of 1L Mannitol Versus 1L Polyethylene Glycol Electrolyte Dispersion as a Salve for Patients With Inadequate Bowel Preparation), which is not on this 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.
Effectiveness of 1L Mannitol Versus 1L Polyethylene Glycol Electrolyte Dispersion as a Salve for Patients With Inadequate Bowel Preparation: a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) remains a global health concern, underscoring the importance of effective bowel preparation for diagnostic procedures such as colonoscopy. This randomized controlled trial was designed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of orally administered mannitol and polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions for repeat colonoscopy in patients with inadequate bowel preparation.
methodsThis prospective, open-label, noninferiority, blinded end point, randomized controlled clinical trial enrolled patients from two centers. Participants aged 18-75 years with Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores ≤ 1 in any colon segment were included. The study employed a 1-L mannitol or PEG solution, with primary outcomes assessed using BBPS scores. The secondary outcomes included adverse events, taste preferences, and patient satisfaction. A simple randomization strategy was employed, and both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were conducted.
resultsA total of 134 patients were included in the study, and the trial demonstrated the noninferiority of mannitol compared to PEG in achieving adequate bowel preparation (difference 3.0%, 95% confidence interval - 5.0 to 11.0%). Mannitol exhibited favorable trends in BBPS scores, highlighting its effectiveness. The safety profiles of the two solutions were comparable, with a low incidence of adverse events (17.9% vs. 19.4%, P = 0.825). Notably, mannitol outperformed PEG in terms of patient satisfaction and a greater inclination for reuse.
conclusionThe findings suggest that orally administered mannitol is not inferior to orally administered PEG in patients with inadequate bowel preparation. REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05912114. Registered on 12/6/2023.
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.