| Title |
Mechanical colon cleansing for screening colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Digestive Diseases, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1111/1751-2980.12562 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kamran Ayub, Gyanprakash Ketwaroo, Suhaib Abudayyeh, Abeer Ibrahim, Rhonda A Cole, Rosetta Brumfield‐Brown, Waqar A Qureshi, Linda Rabeneck, David Y Graham |
| Abstract |
Effective screening colonoscopy depends on the quality of colon preparation. To compare pulsed irrigation evacuation (PIE), polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sodium phosphate colon preps. Outpatients at a VA hospital were randomized using sealed envelopes. Preparations consisted of: 4 liters Golytely; 90 mL of Fleet sodium phosphate with 4-6 glasses water b.i.d., and 296 mL of Mg citrate in the evening with PIE prior to colonoscopy. Colon cleansing was assessed blindly using a 5-point scale: 0 = very poor to 4 = excellent. 391 patients participated (PEG = 129, sodium phosphate = 127, PIE = 135); mean age: 62 years, 75% men. PIE and sodium phosphate were superior to PEG: median cleansing = 4 (excellent) vs. 3 with PEG (p <0.01). Inadequate preps were more common with PEG than PIE (18% vs. 5%) (p <0.01). Side effects including: vomiting: 37% with the sodium phosphate vs. 5% with PEG and 2% with PIE (p<0.01). The 3 preps were judged as intolerable in <5%. PIE and sodium phosphate were superior to PEG for colon preparations. PIE would be the preferred preparation for those at high risk for unsatisfactory preparations or with unsatisfactory traditional preparations. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Researcher | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 17% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 20 May 2023.
All research outputs
#2,091,840
of 24,520,935 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digestive Diseases
#25
of 449 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,472
of 453,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digestive Diseases
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,520,935 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 449 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 453,115 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.