Trial reportChinese medical journal2026
Clinical study of pronase for improving visibility and safety in colonoscopy.
Trial report in Chinese medical journal, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled interventional clinical study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pronase in improving visibility in colonoscopy and to evaluate whether pronase can increase the detection rate of intestinal lesions and the colonoscopist's satisfaction.
methodsFrom June 2023 to December 2023, a total of 1942 patients undergoing air insufflation colonoscopy in 10 hospitals (The First Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, et al ) were selected as the study subjects. They were randomly divided into two groups: (1) the experimental group ( n = 969) was given pronase for flushing in colonoscopy; and (2) the control group ( n = 973) was given physiological saline for flushing in colonoscopy. The improvement of the visibility at the target site (region of interest) in colonoscopy was evaluated in two groups to verify the efficacy of pronase in improving visibility in colonoscopy. The safety of pronase for flushing in colonoscopy was evaluated by comparing the incidence of adverse events between the two groups.
resultsAfter the use of pronase in colonoscopy, the patient's vital signs remained stable, without serious adverse reactions. The improvement rate of visibility in the pronase group was significantly higher than that in the physiological saline group (97.21% [942/969] vs. 86.74% [844/973], P <0.0001), and the subgroup analysis (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale ≥6 points) showed similar results to the overall ones. The physician's satisfaction score in the pronase group was significantly increased. There was no statistically significant difference in the detection rates of adenoma, colorectal cancer, minimal lesions, non-polypoid colorectal lesions, polyps, and precancerous lesions between the two groups.
conclusionsPronase can improve the visibility in colonoscopy and help physicians observe the lesions better. Pronase demonstrates good safety in colonoscopy, with no significant difference compared to physiological saline. REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2300071702).
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.