A randomised blinded study in colonic lavage for colonoscopy

Chakravarty, B.; Fraser, A. G.; Hamilton, I.; Lane, M. R.

doi:10.1111/j.1445-5994.1991.tb01387.x

Cited by 12 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The search strategy identified 112 studies, 82 of which were included in the final analysis 16–97 . Twenty‐eight studies were excluded because of inadequate quality while two used non‐categorical methods to assess quality of bowel preparation, making comparison of study results impossible 98, 99 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Systematic review: oral bowel preparation for colonoscopy

Belsey¹,

Epstein

Héresbach

2006

Aliment Pharmacol Ther

227

179

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two of the simethicone studies addressed patient tolerability. In one, the authors reported benefit with reduced general malaise and sleep disturbance, 56 whilst in the other, patients reported disliking the taste of the simethicone combination 45 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review: oral bowel preparation for colonoscopy

Belsey¹,

Epstein

Héresbach

2006

Aliment Pharmacol Ther

227

179

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Eight trials included a PEG-ELS split dose in which 2 L were administered the day before and 2 L were administered the day of the procedure compared with a PEG-ELS nonsplit regimen regardless of dosage, yielding 1990 ITT patients (846 PEG-ELS split [2 L+2 L] dose; 1144 PEG nonsplit) ( 18,46,66,81,84,85,90,91 ). Six trials were analyzable, resulting in signifi cantly increased cleanliness for the PEG-ELS split-dose regimen (2 L+2 L) compared with the PEG-ELS nonsplit dose (OR, 4.38; 95% CI, 1.88-10.21) ( 46,66,81,84,85,90 ).…”

Section: Polyethylene Glycol-electrolyte Lavage Solutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing Adequacy of Bowel Cleansing for Colonoscopy: Recommendations From the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

Johnson

Barkun

Cohen

et al. 2014

American Journal of Gastroenterology

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The American Journal of GASTROENTEROLOGY PRACTICE GUIDELINESColorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancerrelated deaths in the United States ( 1 ). Colonoscopy can prevent CRC by the detection and removal of precancerous lesions. In addition to CRC screening and surveillance, colonoscopy is used widely for the diagnostic evaluation of symptoms and other positive CRC screening tests. Regardless of indication, the success of colonoscopy is linked closely to the adequacy of preprocedure bowel cleansing.Unfortunately, up to 20-25% of all colonoscopies are reported to have an inadequate bowel preparation ( 2,3 ). Th e reasons for this range from patient-related variables such as compliance with preparation instructions and a variety of medical conditions that make bowel cleansing more diffi cult to unit-specifi c factors (eg, extended wait times aft er scheduling of colonoscopy) ( 4 ). Adverse consequences of ineff ective bowel preparation include lower adenoma detection rates, longer procedural time, lower cecal intubation rates, increased electrocautery risk, and shorter intervals between examinations ( 3,5-7 ).Bowel preparation formulations intended for precolonoscopy cleansing are assessed based on their effi cacy, safety, and tolerability. Lack of specifi c organ toxicity is considered to be a prerequisite for bowel preparations. Between cleansing effi cacy and tolerability, however, the consequences of inadequate cleansing suggest that effi cacy should be a higher priority than tolerability. Consequently, the choice of a bowel cleansing regimen should be based on cleansing effi cacy fi rst and patient tolerability second. However, effi cacy and tolerability are closely interrelated. For example, a cleansing agent that is poorly tolerated and thus not fully ingested may not achieve an adequate cleansing.Th e goals of this consensus document are to provide expert, evidence-based recommendations for clinicians to optimize colonoscopy preparation quality and patient safety. Recommendations are provided using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) scoring system, which weighs the strength of the recommendation and the quality of the evidence ( 8 ). METHODS Search StrategyComputerized medical literature searches were conducted from January 1980 (fi rst year of approval of polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution [PEG-ELS]-based preparation by the Food and Drug Administration [FDA]) up to August 2013 using MEDLINE, PubMed EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL, and ISI Web of knowledge. We used a highly sensitive search strategy to identify reports of randomized controlled trials ( 9 ) with a combination of medical subject headings adapted to each database and text words related to colonoscopy and gastrointestinal agents, bowel preparation, generic name, and brand name. Th e complete search terms are available in Appendix A. Recursive searches and cross-referencing also were performed using a "similar articles" function; hand searches of articles were identifi ed aft er an i...

show abstract

“…Les principaux inconvénients de PEG sont le grand volume de fluide (quatre litres) que les malades doivent boire, ainsi que le goût désagréable qui est dû au sulfate de sodium. La grande quantité à boire explique la mauvaise tolérance avec nausée, vomissement et les crampes abdominales, ce qui affecte l'acceptabilité de cette solution (5 % à 38 % de malades ne complètent pas la préparation) et donc, l'échec de la coloscopie [6][7][8] [9][10][11][12][13] comparant les différentes formes de PEG n'ont pas montré de différence en termes d'efficacité ou de tolérance. Plusieurs études ont montré que le fractionnement de la dose en deux prises séparées de 8-12 heures conduit à une amé-lioration de la qualité de la préparation, ainsi que l'acceptabilité et la tolérance clinique de la préparation [14][15][16][17][18].…”

Section: Différentes Préparations : Polyéthylène Glycol (Peg)unclassified