ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2026
Comparison of low volume versus high-volume polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation for colonoscopy in people receiving haemodialysis: a randomized non-inferiority trial.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04709770 (Comparison of Low-volume Versus High-volume Polyethylene Glycol Based Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in People Receiving Hemodialysis), which is not on this 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.
Comparison of Low-volume Versus High-volume Polyethylene Glycol Based Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in People Receiving Hemodialysis: a Randomized Non-inferiority Trial
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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColonoscopy in chronic kidney disease patients undergoing haemodialysis is crucial. Some concerns have been raised about the use of oral bowel cleansing agents for colonoscopy. We compared the efficacy, safety and tolerability of a low volume versus a high-volume polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation for colonoscopy in such patients.
methodsA multicentre, parallel-arm, randomized, phase IV trial with 15% non-inferiority margin was conducted. Eligible subjects were allocated to either the low volume (2 L) or high-volume (4 L) bowel preparation group in 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with adequate bowel cleansing. Secondary outcomes were polyp/adenoma detection rate (PDR/ADR), cecal intubation rate, patient tolerability/compliance and adverse events.
resultsSixty-nine patients were randomized in four centres, 35 to low and 34 to high-volume groups. No difference in caecal intubation rate, in patients with adequate preparation, was observed (96.7% vs 100%, p = 1). As per-protocol, adequate bowel preparation was achieved in the 69.7 and 63.0% of low and high-volume groups, respectively (p = 0.58). The mean Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was similar in the two groups (5.6 ± 2.4vs 5.4 ± 2.4, p = 0.51). The PDR was 39.4% in low volume and 37.0% in high volume (p = 1). No differences in adverse events were observed. No emergency dialysis sessions were required. Serum creatinine levels remained stable before and after preparation in both groups.
conclusionsOptimal cleansing was difficult to obtain in haemodialysis patients. Both low and high-volume preparations were equally effective and safe. The small sample size is a limit underpowering our research. Larger studies are, therefore, required. Trial registration number The trial was approved by the Central ethic committee (protocol approval no. 0089971/23/11/2020) and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04709770.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42879089What 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.