ReviewAlimentary pharmacology & therapeutics2026
The Clinical Importance of Adequate Bowel Preparation.
Review in Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Clinical Importance of Adequate Bowel Preparation.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdequate bowel preparation (BP) is the foundation to successful colonoscopy. Inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) leads to numerous consequences beyond just procedural inconvenience. IBP can obscure polyps, lesions or early signs of colorectal cancer (CRC) while increasing procedure length, shortening surveillance intervals and increasing health care costs. Efforts to improve BP quality, therefore, are critical for high-quality endoscopic examinations, which optimise the success of CRC screening programmes. Achieving adequate BP begins with clearly understanding and grading BP quality on every examination, aiming for a minimum threshold of adequate BP in > 90% of colonoscopies. Additionally, recognition of patient-specific risk factors for IBP allows for tailored instructions and utilisation of navigational and outreach tools along with enhanced educational materials towards optimising BP. Finally, understanding patient preferences and improving the patient experience can increase the chances of succeeding with not only completion of the index examination but also optimising compliance for any repeat examinations across screening, surveillance and diagnostic indications.
methodsThis manuscript will review the current evidence regarding the consequences of IBP, while discussing patient-specific risk factors and barriers to adequate BP, concluding with methods to improve BP adequacy and practical tips for clinicians.
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.