SynthesisFrontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland)2026
Efficacy safety of linaclotide combined with polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation in patients with constipation: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland), 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In patients with chronic constipation, standard bowel preparation using polyethylene glycol (PEG) often results in inadequate intestinal cleansing, complicating colonoscopy. This study systematically assessed the efficacy and safety of linaclotide combined with PEG (linaclotide-PEG) compared to PEG alone. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang databases up to February 1, 2025, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing linaclotide-PEG with PEG monotherapy in constipated patients. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB 2) tool. Data analyses were performed using Stata 16.0. Results: Eleven RCTs (2022-2024) involving 1,525 participants were included. Compared to PEG alone, linaclotide-PEG significantly improved overall bowel preparation quality [mean difference (MD)=0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.58-1.05; P < 0.05] and segment-specific cleansing scores (left colon: MD = 0.28; right colon: MD = 0.34; transverse colon: MD = 0.35; all P < 0.05). Additionally, polyp detection rate increased, procedural duration and cecal intubation times decreased, and patients' willingness to repeat colonoscopy improved significantly (all P < 0.05). The linaclotide-PEG regimen also reduced adverse reaction (nausea and vomiting events) (P < 0.05). No significant publication bias was detected (Egger's and Begg's tests: P > 0.05). Conclusion: Linaclotide-PEG is superior to PEG alone, enhancing bowel cleansing effectiveness, increasing lesion detection rates, shortening procedure times, and reducing adverse events, thus offering clear clinical advantages. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420250652929.
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.