Trial reportInternal and emergency medicine2026
Efficacy, tolerability, and safety of 1.5L-lactulose as bowel preparation for patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a randomized, single-blinded trial.
Trial report in Internal and emergency medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLactulose is a novel laxative with low volume and excellent tolerability. It used as a bowel preparation for colonoscopy has so far limited application. We compared the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of lactulose with those of polyethylene glycol (PEG) in bowel preparation of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
methodsWe enrolled 140 patients with clinically inactive IBD who required colonoscopy and randomly divided them into the 3L-PEG group or the 1.5L-Lactulose group. Bowel cleansing was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. The tolerability and satisfaction of the bowel preparation methods were evaluated using self-administered questionnaires. Safety was assessed by monitoring electrolytes, and liver and kidney functions in partial patients.
resultsThe successful bowel preparation rate was higher in the Lactulose group than in the PEG group (92.9% versus 81.4%, P = 0.0434). According to the multivariable analyses, the male sex was an independent risk factor of efficacy. The responses to self-administered questionnaires revealed that the Lactulose group experienced significantly better taste and had a higher willingness to repeat the same regimen than the PEG group (P < 0.0001). In the Lactulose group, most patients who had used PEG before could better evaluate lactulose (P < 0.0001). No significant differences in adverse events and safety were between the two groups (P > 0.05). The multivariable analyses revealed age was an independent factor of adverse events.
conclusions1.5L-Lactulose had a higher bowel cleansing success rate and higher tolerability with acceptable safety than 3L-PEG. Therefore, 1.5L-Lactulose may be a potential option for bowel preparation in inactive IBD patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41998448What 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.