Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41777342›Full record

ArticleEndoscopy international open2026

Efficacy and acceptability of bowel preparation strategies for inflammatory bowel disease colonoscopy: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Gaurav B Nigam, Morris Gordon, Vassiliki Sinopoulou, Anukriti Tomar, Shahida Din, Margaret Vance, Ana Wilson, James E East, British Society of Gastroenterology Colorectal IBD Surveillance Guideline Development Group

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Endoscopy international open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Gaurav B NigamTranslational Gastroenterology and Liver Unit, Nuffield Department of Medicine, Experimental Medicine Division, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-4699-2263
Morris GordonSchool of Medicine, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Vassiliki SinopoulouSchool of Medicine, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-2831-9406
Anukriti TomarSchool of Medicine, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Shahida DinEdinburgh Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Unit, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Margaret VanceWolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St. Mark's Hospital, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Ana WilsonWolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St. Mark's Hospital, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
James E EastTranslational Gastroenterology and Liver Unit, Nuffield Department of Medicine, Experimental Medicine Division, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
British Society of Gastroenterology Colorectal IBD Surveillance Guideline Development Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and study aims: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) frequently undergo colonoscopy, each requiring bowel preparation. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) 2019 guidelines recommended high- or low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based bowel prep for IBD patients; however other non-PEG-based preparations (sulphate and picosulphate-based) have now been studied in IBD. Methods: We searched CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, MEDLINE, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to December 2024. Primary outcome was bowel prep success; secondary outcomes included tolerability, acceptability, cecal intubation rates (CIR) and safety. Pooled estimates used risk ratio (RR) and GRADE to assess evidence certainty. Results: Ten RCTs (1479 IBD patients) were included. There was no difference in prep success (relative risk [RR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.09; I Conclusions: High-certainty evidence supports low-volume PEG as comparably successful to high-volume PEG, with higher acceptability. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates similar success between non-PEG and PEG-based preps. Both low-volume PEG and non-PEG-based preps are supported for use in IBD, broadening options beyond current ESGE guidelines.

Indexed as

CRC screeningEndoscopy Lower GI TractInflammatory bowel diseasePreparationQuality and logistical aspects

Identifiers

PMID41777342
PMCPMC12951038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.