SynthesisBMC gastroenterology2026
A meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of 2 L versus 3 L polyethylene glycol in bowel preparation for colonoscopy.
Synthesis in BMC gastroenterology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) versus 3 L PEG in bowel preparation for colonoscopy, and to assess whether 2 L PEG can serve as a safe and effective standard regimen.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CMB), CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP databases from inception to November 22, 2024. Literature screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook 5.1.0. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 and stata 15.0 software.
resultsThirteen randomized controlled trials involving a total of 8,953 participants were included. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between the 2 L and 3 L PEG groups in terms of bowel preparation success rate (RR = 0.93, 95% CI:0.84–1.02, P = 0.12), high-quality preparation rate (RR = 0.74, 95% CI:0.53–1.04, P = 0.09), or polyp detection rate (RR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.95–1.03, P = 0.62). However, the 2 L PEG group had significantly lower incidence of nausea (RR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.71–0.92, P = 0.002), vomiting (RR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.56–0.87, P = 0.001), bloating (RR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.57–0.93, P = 0.01), and abdominal pain (RR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.56–0.95, P = 0.02). Moreover, the willingness to repeat colonoscopy was significantly higher in the 2 L group compared to the 3 L group (RR = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.16–1.29, P < 0.01).
conclusionThe 2 L PEG regimen can be considered a safe and effective standard option for bowel preparation. It offers comparable cleansing efficacy to 3 L PEG while reducing adverse events and enhancing patient willingness to undergo repeat colonoscopy.
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.