↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Two low-dose bowel-cleansing regimens: efficacy and safety of senna and sodium phosphorus solution for colonoscopy

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
Title
Two low-dose bowel-cleansing regimens: efficacy and safety of senna and sodium phosphorus solution for colonoscopy
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, September 2015
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s88644
Pubmed ID
Authors

Orhan Kursat Poyrazoglu, Mehmet Yalniz

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy, adequacy, side effects, and patient compliance of sodium phosphorus (NaP) and senna solutions when preparing the colon before colonoscopy. A total of 137 consecutive patients who were considered for colonoscopy evaluation had randomly received one of two premeditated regimens: 90 mL of oral NaP (NaP group) or 500 mL of 1,000 mg of sennosides A and B calcium +66.6 g of sorbitol (senna group). Patients' compliance with the bowel-cleansing method was determined using a questionnaire prior to the colonoscopic examination. On the other hand, the adequacy of the bowel-cleansing method was evaluated by the colonoscopist who was blind to the bowel-cleansing regimen used prior to the examination of the colon from the rectum to the cecum. Nausea and vomiting complaints were seen more frequently in the NaP group than in the senna group (47 vs 28 and 31 vs 10; P<0.05 and P<0.01, respectively). The response to the question of whether the patients would like to use the same regimen again or not was similar in both groups. The acceptable bowel-cleansing rate was also comparable across both groups. Nevertheless, the number of patients that experienced excellent bowel cleansing in terms of general appraisal of the colonoscopic evaluation was significantly greater in the NaP group than in the senna group (46 vs 25; P<0.001). Although bowel cleansing was better in the NaP group, both cleansing regimens were comparable regarding the admissibility of the preparations for the procedure. The senna regimen is, however, superior to the NaP regimen in terms of application compliance and its side effects, and it may be an effective alternative for cleansing the bowel prior to colonoscopic examination.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 20%
Student > Postgraduate 2 20%
Researcher 2 20%
Student > Bachelor 1 10%
Librarian 1 10%
Other 2 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 20%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 10%
Sports and Recreations 1 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 10%
Other 2 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 September 2015.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,064
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,908
of 276,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#31
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 276,791 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.