↓ Skip to main content

Phosphate tablets or polyethylene glycol for preparation to colonoscopy? A multicentre non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Phosphate tablets or polyethylene glycol for preparation to colonoscopy? A multicentre non-inferiority randomized controlled trial
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00464-016-5214-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stanislas Chaussade, Christoph Schmöcker, Pierre Toulemonde, Miguel Muñoz-Navas, Valérie O’Mahony, Franck Henri

Abstract

Adequate bowel preparation is a crucial step in colonoscopy procedure and has been identified as the cornerstone of a quality colonoscopy. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel cleansing still had up to 10 % unprepared colon. We herein compare efficacy, acceptability, tolerance and safety of sodium phosphate (NaP) tablets and split-dose PEG for bowel cleansing. A prospective non-inferiority randomized trial was performed and registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01840553). Patients were randomized to either 32 NaP tablets or 4 L of PEG. Blind readers assessed the efficacy of colon cleansing using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). A total of 461 patients were randomized in groups (NaP group: n = 231; PEG group: n = 230). Median age was 54 and 52 in NaP group and PEG group, respectively (p < 0.01). Patients experienced an overall compliance to the treatment in 99.6 and 94.1 % in the NaP group and in the PEG group, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean time of withdrawal was 15.1 ± 8.9 and 15.4 ± 9.5 min in the NaP group and in the PEG group, respectively (p = 0.95). The good quality of bowel preparation, defined as BBPS score ≥7, was obtained in 86.4 and 89.0 % of cases in the NaP group and in the PEG group, respectively (p = 0.42). In all segment (right colon, transverse colon and left colon and rectum), the NaP group was non-inferior to the PEG group. Bowel prep regimen was more frequently considered as "easy" by patients from the NaP group (54.8 % of patients) than patients from the PEG group (29.0 % of patients; p < 0.001). No serious adverse events were reported. No statistical differences were found between the NaP group and the PEG group concerning the incidence of an adverse event (338 vs. 322, respectively). While NaP tablets appeared as efficient as PEG in terms of colon cleansing prior to a colonoscopy, they significantly improved the overall compliance and eased product administration. At an era where bowel cleansing appears to be the cornerstone of a quality colonoscopy, NaP tablets in patients without contraindication might be considered as an option.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Other 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 8 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 51%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 8 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 May 2017.
All research outputs
#7,469,253
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#1,675
of 6,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,708
of 416,447 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#63
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,091 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 416,447 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.