ArticleClinical endoscopy2026
Oral sulfate-based versus low-volume polyethylene glycol-ascorbate regimens for colonoscopy preparation in the geriatric population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdequate bowel preparation is essential for high-quality colonoscopy; however, older adults often struggle with large-volume regimens. Low-volume oral sulfate (OS)-based and polyethylene glycol-ascorbate (PEG-Asc) may improve tolerability without compromising efficacy. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of these regimens in older adults.
methodsWe searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception until May 2025 for randomized controlled trials comparing OS with low-volume PEG-Asc in adults aged ≥65 years. Outcomes were pooled using random-effects models as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs).
resultsSix trials (n=682; OS, 340; PEG-Asc, 342) were included. The overall cleansing success rates were comparable (RR, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-1.03). Total Boston bowel preparation scale and segmental scores did not significantly differ between the groups (MD, 0.08; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.27). OS improved lesion detection in terms of polyp detection (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.45) and adenoma detection rates (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.49). Patient-reported satisfaction modestly favored OS compared with PEG-Asc (MD, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.10-1.29), whereas willingness to reuse was similar between the two groups (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.97-1.23). Adverse events and procedural metrics did not significantly differ between the groups.
conclusionsIn adults aged ≥65 years, OS and low-volume PEG-Asc achieved similar cleansing quality and safety. OS may confer higher polyp and adenoma detection rates than PEG-Asc and may be a reasonable option for maximizing lesion detection.
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.