Trial reportBMC gastroenterology2026
Efficacy and safety of sodium phosphate powder for bowel cleansing in patients aged 50-70 years: a randomised, multicentre, single-blind trial.
Trial report 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) offers a safe bowel preparation but is often poorly tolerated, whereas low-volume hyperosmotic agents like sodium phosphate (NaP) may improve tolerability but pose safety risks from fluid and electrolyte shifts. We therefore aimed to compare a 1.6-L NaP powder regimen with a standard 4.0-L PEG regimen for bowel preparation efficacy, patient compliance, tolerability, safety in individuals aged 50–70.
methodsIn this multicenter, randomized, single-blind, non-inferiority trial, patients aged 50 to 70 years were randomly assigned to NaP group and PEG group. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate bowel preparation assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).
resultsBetween November 2023 and January 2025, 728 patients from 8 tertiary hospitals in China were recruited and 713 patients were randomly assigned to either the NaP group (n = 362) or the PEG group (n = 351). The adequate preparations rate (BBPS ≥ 6 score) was 93.37% in the NaP group and 93.73% in the PEG group (absolute difference − 0.36%, 95% CI -3.97% to 3.24%; Pnon−inferiority < 0.001). The incidence of adverse events, withdrawal time, cecal intubation rate, polyp detection rate, and adenoma detection rate showed no statistical difference. The NaP group exhibited more pronounced changes in blood electrolytes than the PEG group, including potassium (-0.28 ± 0.39 vs. -0.04 ± 0.36, P < 0.001), calcium (-0.11 ± 0.14 vs. -0.04 ± 0.12, P < 0.001), and sodium (1.03 ± 2.79 vs. 0.44 ± 2.62, P < 0.001). However, the alterations in serum creatinine were comparable between the two groups (-0.88 ± 8.57 vs. -1.00 ± 9.58, P = 0.152). No serious adverse events occurred between two groups. Notably, patients in the NaP group reported significantly higher satisfaction scores than those in the PEG group (8.74 ± 1.28 vs. 7.09 ± 1.58, P < 0.001).
conclusionNaP is an effective low-volume purgative that is non-inferior to PEG in Chinese individuals aged 50–70 years with normal renal function. NaP results in greater patient satisfaction.
trial registrationThe study was approved by the research ethic boards from all sites and was retrospectively registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) (registration number: ChiCTR2500095664) on January 10, 2025.
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.