Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41793108›Full record

ReviewScience progress

Strategies to optimize bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy in individuals.

Youping Wang, Mingkai Chen, Xin Gao

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Science progress. 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

3 authors.

Youping WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Mingkai ChenDepartment of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Xin GaoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7198-0163

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colorectal cancer remains a major global health concern, highlighting the critical importance of effective colonoscopy, whose success depends on high-quality bowel preparation. Inadequate preparation is common and leads to prolonged procedure, and missed polyps and adenomas. It is important to recognize that not all individuals can attain adequate bowel preparation through a uniform regimen. Various risk factors influencing bowel preparation quality have been reported, and different laxative regimens each present distinct advantages and limitations. Understanding these elements can help improve patient bowel preparation outcomes. This is a narrative review. This article attempts to summarize available clinical trials and evidence regarding strategies to optimize bowel preparation for individuals.

Indexed as

CatharticsColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsHumansLaxativesRisk FactorsCatharticsLaxativesBowel preparationcolonoscopyindividualslaxativesrisk factors

Identifiers

PMID41793108
PMCPMC12967346

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.