Trial reportBMC gastroenterology2026
A randomized controlled superiority trial of 1 L (Plenvu) versus 2 L (Moviprep) polyethelene glycol plus ascorbate in a FIT-based colorectal cancer screening setting (PLEMO).
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSufficient cleansing of the colonic mucosa is of great importance during colonoscopy emphasizing the need for effective preparation agents. Studies evaluating the efficacy of a novel 1 L polyethylene glycol with ascorbate (1 L-PEG-Asc), Plenvu
methodsIn this single-center randomized controlled superiority trial, participants of the Danish national colorectal cancer screening program scheduled for colonoscopy were randomized to either 1 L-PEG-Asc or 2 L-PEG-Asc administered as evening/morning split-dose. Primary endpoint was efficacy of the bowel preparation assessed as bowel cleansing success according to Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), adequate defined as BBPS ≥ 2 in each segment. Secondary outcomes included excellent bowel preparation defined as BBPS = 3 in each segment, nausea, vomiting, willingness to repeat the cleansing, and lesion detection defined as polyp, adenoma, sessile serrated lesion, and cancer detection.
results1275 participants were randomized to 1 L-PEG-Asc (n = 629) or 2 L-PEG-Asc (n = 646). 1 L-PEG-Asc achieved superior frequencies for adequate (92.2% vs. 86.1%, p < 0.001) and excellent preparation (59.2% vs. 43.8%, p < 0.001). Nausea (57.4% vs. 46.6%, p < 0.001) and vomiting (13.9% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.006) were more frequent in the 1 L-PEG-Asc group. Despite this, more participants were willing to repeat cleansing with this agent again (82% vs. 76%, p = 0.009). No difference was seen among lesion detection between the groups.
conclusions1 L-PEG-Asc showed superior bowel cleansing efficacy, but increased rates of vomit and nausea compared to 2 L-PEG-Asc. Despite this, willingness to repeat the cleansing with the same agent was more frequent in the 1 L-PEG-Asc group.
trial registrationEudraCT number: 2018-003304-39. Trial registration date 29/10 2018, study start date 17/10 2019.
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.