ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2026
1 versus 2 L PEG/Asc for bowel preparation in patients with hematochezia: a multicenter, prospective, randomized, non-inferiority study.
Article in Therapeutic advances in 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with hematochezia often present with inadequate bowel preparation, which compromises the accuracy of colonoscopy. Despite this clinical challenge, evidence guiding optimal preparation strategies for this population is limited. Objectives: We directly compared the efficacy and safety of ultra-low-volume (1 L) polyethylene glycol/ascorbic acid (PEG/Asc) versus low-volume (2 L) PEG/Asc in patients undergoing colonoscopy for hematochezia. Design: In a prospective, randomized, multicenter non-inferiority trial, patients received either 1 or 2 L PEG/Asc using standard split-dose regimens. Methods: Bowel preparation quality was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, adverse events, colonic bleeding source identification rate, and adenoma detection rate (ADR). Results: In total, 184 patients were analyzed. Successful bowel cleansing was achieved in 78.3% of the 1 L PEG/Asc group and 76.1% of the 2 L PEG/Asc group, confirming non-inferiority. The mean BBPS score was higher with 1 L PEG/Asc (6.87 vs 6.30; Conclusion: Ultra-low-volume (1 L) PEG/Asc is as effective and safe as 2 L PEG/Asc for bowel preparation in patients with hematochezia. Bowel cleansing and satisfaction were higher with the 1 L PEG/Asc regimen without statistically significant differences, supporting its use as a practical alternative. Trial registration: The study was registered with the Clinical Research Information Service, Republic of Korea, a primary registry in the WHO Registry Network (registration number: KCT0006124).
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.