The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic review: oral bowel preparation for colonoscopy
Abstract
Summary: Background: There are many published trials of colon cleansing regimens for colonoscopy but no clear consensus regarding relative performance. Aim: To identify high quality controlled trials comparing two or more bowel preparation regimens and to compare efficacy and tolerability. Methods: A comprehensive systematic review was carried out to identify candidate studies. Quality appraisal was carried out on all identified studies. Results were meta‐analysed where possible and qualitatively compared if not. Results: Eighty‐two studies qualified for analysis. Polyethylene glycol and sodium phosphate were the most frequently investigated preparations. There was no significant efficacy difference between the two, but sodium phosphate was better tolerated. Sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate, a commonly prescribed preparation, was investigated in four studies, with no clear benefit over other regimens demonstrated. Safety was not recognized as a problem in the randomized controlled trials. Published case series demonstrate that sodium phosphate is associated with the highest risk of clinically significant electrolyte disturbances. Conclusion: Shortcomings in study design limit the value of many of the studies. Based on these results, no single bowel preparation emerges as consistently superior. New preparations are required that combine better efficacy and tolerability, in addition to rigorous new validated study designs, allowing unequivocal comparisons to be made.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Froehlich, F., Wietlisbach, V., Gonvers, J.-J., Burnand, B., & Vader, J.-P. (2005) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/s0016-5107(04)02776-2 · Cited by 931
Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia
Harewood, G. C., Sharma, V. K., & de Garmo, P. (2003) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1067/mge.2003.294 · Cited by 724
Impact of Bowel Preparation on Efficiency and Cost of Colonoscopy
Rex, D. K., Imperiale, T. F., Latinovich, D., & Bratcher, L. (2002) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9270(02)04183-7 · Cited by 637
Bowles, C. J. A., Leicester, R., Romaya, C., Swarbrick, E., Williams, C. B., & Epstein, O. (2004) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2003.016436 · Cited by 617
Self-citationPredictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy
Ness, R. (2001) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9270(01)02437-6 · Cited by 473
Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality
Rostom, A., & Jolicoeur, E. (2004) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/s0016-5107(03)02875-x · Cited by 451
Uses and abuses of meta-analysis
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., & Sterne, J. A. (2001) · Clinical Medicine · doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.1-6-478 · Cited by 255
Hsu, C.-W., & Imperiale, T. F. (1998) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/s0016-5107(98)70191-9 · Cited by 225
Wiklund, I. (2004) · Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/j.1472-8206.2004.00234.x · Cited by 205
Cited by
Colon capsule endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline
Spada, C., Hassan, C., Galmiche, J., Neuhaus, H., Dumonceau, J., Adler, S., Epstein, O., Gay, G., Pennazio, M., Rex, D., et al. (2012) · Endoscopy · doi:10.1055/s-0031-1291717 · Cited by 287
Self-citationLee, T., Rees, C., Blanks, R., Moss, S., Nickerson, C., Wright, K., James, P., McNally, R., Patnick, J., & Rutter, M. (2014) · Endoscopy · doi:10.1055/s-0033-1358831 · Cited by 111
Metadata
- Authors
- BELSEY, J., EPSTEIN, O., & HERESBACH, D.
- Venue
- Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-12-07
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 373-384
- ISSN
- 0269-2813 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2036
- OpenAlex
- W1479670292
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 28
- FWCI
- 0.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic review: oral bowel preparation for colonoscopy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.03212.x
- The paper
- BELSEY, J., EPSTEIN, O., & HERESBACH, D. (2007). Systematic review: oral bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.03212.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.