Cargando…

Polyethylene glycol vs. sodium phosphate for bowel preparation: A treatment arm meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Results of meta-analyses of randomized trials comparing PEG and NaP are inconsistent and have not included trials comparing either or both preps to less traditional ones. AIM: To perform a meta-analysis by treatment arm. METHODS: Using MEDLINE and EMBASE, we identified English-language t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Juluri, Ravi, Eckert, George, Imperiale, Thomas F
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096583/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21492418
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-230X-11-38
_version_ 1782203728416210944
author Juluri, Ravi
Eckert, George
Imperiale, Thomas F
author_facet Juluri, Ravi
Eckert, George
Imperiale, Thomas F
author_sort Juluri, Ravi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Results of meta-analyses of randomized trials comparing PEG and NaP are inconsistent and have not included trials comparing either or both preps to less traditional ones. AIM: To perform a meta-analysis by treatment arm. METHODS: Using MEDLINE and EMBASE, we identified English-language trials published from 1990 to 2008 that included PEG and/or NaP, and aggregated them by treatment arm into: 4 liter (L) PEG; 2 L PEG; split-dose PEG; two 45 ml doses of NaP +/- adjunctive medication; and NaP tablets. We compared prep quality and the proportion completing the prep. RESULTS: Among 71 trials (patient N = 10,201), excellent prep quality was present in 34% (CI, 26-41%) for 4 L PEG alone; 39% (CI, 26-51%) for 2 L PEG; 37% (CI, 28-46%) for split-dose PEG; 42% (CI, 33-51%) for NaP solution; 44% (CI, 38-51%) for NaP with adjunctive meds; and 58% (CI, 49-67%) for NaP tablets. Patients receiving NaP were more likely to complete the prep (97% [CI, 96-98%] vs. 90% [CI, 87-92%] for 4L PEG alone); however, completion rates for 2L PEG (98%) and split dose PEG (95%) were similar to NaP. CONCLUSIONS: NaP tablets resulted in better prep quality and higher completion rates compared to other regimens. In comparisons limited by sample size, split dose PEG was not statistically different from NaP solution for completion rate or prep quality.
format Text
id pubmed-3096583
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-30965832011-05-18 Polyethylene glycol vs. sodium phosphate for bowel preparation: A treatment arm meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Juluri, Ravi Eckert, George Imperiale, Thomas F BMC Gastroenterol Research Article BACKGROUND: Results of meta-analyses of randomized trials comparing PEG and NaP are inconsistent and have not included trials comparing either or both preps to less traditional ones. AIM: To perform a meta-analysis by treatment arm. METHODS: Using MEDLINE and EMBASE, we identified English-language trials published from 1990 to 2008 that included PEG and/or NaP, and aggregated them by treatment arm into: 4 liter (L) PEG; 2 L PEG; split-dose PEG; two 45 ml doses of NaP +/- adjunctive medication; and NaP tablets. We compared prep quality and the proportion completing the prep. RESULTS: Among 71 trials (patient N = 10,201), excellent prep quality was present in 34% (CI, 26-41%) for 4 L PEG alone; 39% (CI, 26-51%) for 2 L PEG; 37% (CI, 28-46%) for split-dose PEG; 42% (CI, 33-51%) for NaP solution; 44% (CI, 38-51%) for NaP with adjunctive meds; and 58% (CI, 49-67%) for NaP tablets. Patients receiving NaP were more likely to complete the prep (97% [CI, 96-98%] vs. 90% [CI, 87-92%] for 4L PEG alone); however, completion rates for 2L PEG (98%) and split dose PEG (95%) were similar to NaP. CONCLUSIONS: NaP tablets resulted in better prep quality and higher completion rates compared to other regimens. In comparisons limited by sample size, split dose PEG was not statistically different from NaP solution for completion rate or prep quality. BioMed Central 2011-04-14 /pmc/articles/PMC3096583/ /pubmed/21492418 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-230X-11-38 Text en Copyright ©2011 Juluri et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Juluri, Ravi
Eckert, George
Imperiale, Thomas F
Polyethylene glycol vs. sodium phosphate for bowel preparation: A treatment arm meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title Polyethylene glycol vs. sodium phosphate for bowel preparation: A treatment arm meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full Polyethylene glycol vs. sodium phosphate for bowel preparation: A treatment arm meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_fullStr Polyethylene glycol vs. sodium phosphate for bowel preparation: A treatment arm meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed Polyethylene glycol vs. sodium phosphate for bowel preparation: A treatment arm meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_short Polyethylene glycol vs. sodium phosphate for bowel preparation: A treatment arm meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_sort polyethylene glycol vs. sodium phosphate for bowel preparation: a treatment arm meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096583/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21492418
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-230X-11-38
work_keys_str_mv AT juluriravi polyethyleneglycolvssodiumphosphateforbowelpreparationatreatmentarmmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT eckertgeorge polyethyleneglycolvssodiumphosphateforbowelpreparationatreatmentarmmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT imperialethomasf polyethyleneglycolvssodiumphosphateforbowelpreparationatreatmentarmmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials