Cargando…
Bowel preparation for elective procedures in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis
OBJECTIVE: Reviews have investigated preparation for colonoscopy, but not for surgery, They are also often limited to patients up to 16 years, despite many paediatric gastroenterologists caring for older patients. We carried out a systematic review investigating the optimum bowel preparation agents...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5862165/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29637141 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2017-000118 |
_version_ | 1783308181905080320 |
---|---|
author | Gordon, Morris Karlsen, Fiona Isaji, Sahira Teck, Guan-Ong |
author_facet | Gordon, Morris Karlsen, Fiona Isaji, Sahira Teck, Guan-Ong |
author_sort | Gordon, Morris |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Reviews have investigated preparation for colonoscopy, but not for surgery, They are also often limited to patients up to 16 years, despite many paediatric gastroenterologists caring for older patients. We carried out a systematic review investigating the optimum bowel preparation agents for all indications in children and young people. DESIGN: A Cochrane format systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality were performed independently by two reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. PATIENTS: Young people requiring bowel preparation for any elective procedure, as defined by the primary studies. INTERVENTIONS: RCTs comparing bowel preparation with placebo or other interventions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adequacy of bowel preparation, tolerability and adverse events. RESULTS: The search yielded 2124 results and 15 randomised controlled studies (n=1435)but heterogeneity limited synthesis. Meta-analysis of two studies comparing polyethylene glycol (PEG) with sodium phosphate showed no difference in the quality of bowel preparation (risk ratio (RR) 1.27(95% CI 0.66 to 2.44)). Two studies comparing sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate with PEG found no difference in bowel preparation but significantly higher number of patients needing nasogastric tube insertion in the polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution (RR 0.04(95% CI 0.01 to 0.18), 45 of 117 in PEG group vs 2 of 121 in sodium picosulfate group). Meta-analysis of three studies (n=241) found no difference between PEG and sennasoids (RR 0.73(95% CI 0.31 to 1.71)). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base is clinically heterogeneous and methodologically at risk of bias. There is evidence that all regimens are equally effective. However, sodium picosulfate was better tolerated than PEG. Future research is needed with all agents and should seek to consider safety and tolerability as well as efficacy. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5862165 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58621652018-04-10 Bowel preparation for elective procedures in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis Gordon, Morris Karlsen, Fiona Isaji, Sahira Teck, Guan-Ong BMJ Paediatr Open Original Article OBJECTIVE: Reviews have investigated preparation for colonoscopy, but not for surgery, They are also often limited to patients up to 16 years, despite many paediatric gastroenterologists caring for older patients. We carried out a systematic review investigating the optimum bowel preparation agents for all indications in children and young people. DESIGN: A Cochrane format systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality were performed independently by two reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. PATIENTS: Young people requiring bowel preparation for any elective procedure, as defined by the primary studies. INTERVENTIONS: RCTs comparing bowel preparation with placebo or other interventions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adequacy of bowel preparation, tolerability and adverse events. RESULTS: The search yielded 2124 results and 15 randomised controlled studies (n=1435)but heterogeneity limited synthesis. Meta-analysis of two studies comparing polyethylene glycol (PEG) with sodium phosphate showed no difference in the quality of bowel preparation (risk ratio (RR) 1.27(95% CI 0.66 to 2.44)). Two studies comparing sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate with PEG found no difference in bowel preparation but significantly higher number of patients needing nasogastric tube insertion in the polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution (RR 0.04(95% CI 0.01 to 0.18), 45 of 117 in PEG group vs 2 of 121 in sodium picosulfate group). Meta-analysis of three studies (n=241) found no difference between PEG and sennasoids (RR 0.73(95% CI 0.31 to 1.71)). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base is clinically heterogeneous and methodologically at risk of bias. There is evidence that all regimens are equally effective. However, sodium picosulfate was better tolerated than PEG. Future research is needed with all agents and should seek to consider safety and tolerability as well as efficacy. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-09-18 /pmc/articles/PMC5862165/ /pubmed/29637141 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2017-000118 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Original Article Gordon, Morris Karlsen, Fiona Isaji, Sahira Teck, Guan-Ong Bowel preparation for elective procedures in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Bowel preparation for elective procedures in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Bowel preparation for elective procedures in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Bowel preparation for elective procedures in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Bowel preparation for elective procedures in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Bowel preparation for elective procedures in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | bowel preparation for elective procedures in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5862165/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29637141 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2017-000118 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gordonmorris bowelpreparationforelectiveproceduresinchildrenasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT karlsenfiona bowelpreparationforelectiveproceduresinchildrenasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT isajisahira bowelpreparationforelectiveproceduresinchildrenasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT teckguanong bowelpreparationforelectiveproceduresinchildrenasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |