ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Comparison of PEG-Based and Non-PEG Bowel Preparation for Emergency Colonoscopy in Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Real-World Cohort Study with IPTW Analysis.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe optimal bowel preparation for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB) in the emergency remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of oral versus non-oral laxative approaches for emergency colonoscopy in ALGIB patients.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 157 patients undergoing emergency colonoscopy for ALGIB, stratified into PEG (n = 67) and non-PEG (n = 90) groups. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied to adjust for baseline confounders, including pre-procedural suspected etiology. Primary outcomes were endoscopic diagnosis (including definitive and presumptive) and hemostasis rates. Secondary outcomes included bowel preparation quality, procedural completion, and medical resource utilization. Post hoc analyses were performed by categorizing etiologies into focal/subtle and diffuse/obvious types.
resultsAfter IPTW adjustment, overall core outcomes including endoscopic diagnosis (86.5% vs. 80.3%), stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) detection (42.7% vs. 43.9%) and hemostasis (12.5% vs. 16.9%) were comparable between groups (all adjusted P > 0.05). The PEG group demonstrated significantly higher rates of adequate bowel preparation (BBPS ≥ 6: 70.6% vs. 31.8%, P < 0.001) and cecal intubation (86.2% vs. 55.9%, P = 0.001), with no significant differences between groups in procedural efficiency or resource utilization (all P > 0.05). However, outcomes were significantly etiology-dependent. Diffuse/obvious lesions were associated with significantly higher definite diagnosis rates (64.3% vs. 38.6%, P = 0.004) but lower cecal intubation success (66.1% vs. 84.3%, P = 0.017) compared to focal/subtle lesions.
conclusionClinical outcomes in ALGIB are fundamentally etiology-dependent. While PEG and non-PEG strategies achieve comparable overall diagnostic and therapeutic yields, their distinct clinical utilities vary across lesion types. These findings advocate for a stratified, etiology-driven approach to bowel preparation. Future efforts should prioritize the development of pre-procedural predictive models to refine individualized management strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42455494What 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.