Cargando…

Comparative efficacy of low volume versus traditional standard volume PEG on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: Protocol for an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

INTRODUCTION: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) has been considered as the first recommendation for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. A previous meta-analysis suggested that low volume PEG may improve the acceptability of ingesting bowel preparation solution. However, several limitations impaired the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yi, Li-Juan, Tian, Xu, Pi, Yuan-Ping, Feng, Ling, Chen, Hui, Liu, Xiao-Ling, Chen, Wei-Qing
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5944532/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29703060
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000010599
_version_ 1783321847175053312
author Yi, Li-Juan
Tian, Xu
Pi, Yuan-Ping
Feng, Ling
Chen, Hui
Liu, Xiao-Ling
Chen, Wei-Qing
author_facet Yi, Li-Juan
Tian, Xu
Pi, Yuan-Ping
Feng, Ling
Chen, Hui
Liu, Xiao-Ling
Chen, Wei-Qing
author_sort Yi, Li-Juan
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) has been considered as the first recommendation for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. A previous meta-analysis suggested that low volume PEG may improve the acceptability of ingesting bowel preparation solution. However, several limitations impaired the power of findings from this published meta-analysis, such as the variation in study design of included trials and adjuvant prescriptions. Moreover, some studies related to this topic have been published recently. And thus, the aim of this updated meta-analysis is to further assess the comparative efficacy of low volume versus standard volume of PEG on bowel preparation before colonoscopy with trial sequential analysis (TSA). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Systematic searches will be performed to capture any potential randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigated the comparative efficacy of low volume versus traditional standard volume PEG on bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Moreover, we will also manually check the bibliographies of related studies and reviews so as to get additional studies. Two reviewers will independently screen the citation records, extract essential information, and appraise the risk of bias of each RCT in sequence. Finally, we will used the STATA software version 12.0 and TSA software version beta 0.9 to statistically analyze all data and test the robust of each pooled result, respectively. RESULTS: We will submit the full-text of systematic review to a peer-review journal for publication. CONCLUSION: This updated systematic review and meta-analysis with TSA will further assess the comparative efficacy and safety of low-volume versus traditional standard volume PEG for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. And then, a more comprehensive evidence body on low-volume compared to standard volume PEG in bowel preparation will be constructed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5944532
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59445322018-05-15 Comparative efficacy of low volume versus traditional standard volume PEG on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: Protocol for an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis Yi, Li-Juan Tian, Xu Pi, Yuan-Ping Feng, Ling Chen, Hui Liu, Xiao-Ling Chen, Wei-Qing Medicine (Baltimore) Research Article INTRODUCTION: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) has been considered as the first recommendation for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. A previous meta-analysis suggested that low volume PEG may improve the acceptability of ingesting bowel preparation solution. However, several limitations impaired the power of findings from this published meta-analysis, such as the variation in study design of included trials and adjuvant prescriptions. Moreover, some studies related to this topic have been published recently. And thus, the aim of this updated meta-analysis is to further assess the comparative efficacy of low volume versus standard volume of PEG on bowel preparation before colonoscopy with trial sequential analysis (TSA). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Systematic searches will be performed to capture any potential randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigated the comparative efficacy of low volume versus traditional standard volume PEG on bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Moreover, we will also manually check the bibliographies of related studies and reviews so as to get additional studies. Two reviewers will independently screen the citation records, extract essential information, and appraise the risk of bias of each RCT in sequence. Finally, we will used the STATA software version 12.0 and TSA software version beta 0.9 to statistically analyze all data and test the robust of each pooled result, respectively. RESULTS: We will submit the full-text of systematic review to a peer-review journal for publication. CONCLUSION: This updated systematic review and meta-analysis with TSA will further assess the comparative efficacy and safety of low-volume versus traditional standard volume PEG for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. And then, a more comprehensive evidence body on low-volume compared to standard volume PEG in bowel preparation will be constructed. Wolters Kluwer Health 2018-04-27 /pmc/articles/PMC5944532/ /pubmed/29703060 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000010599 Text en Copyright © 2018 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
spellingShingle Research Article
Yi, Li-Juan
Tian, Xu
Pi, Yuan-Ping
Feng, Ling
Chen, Hui
Liu, Xiao-Ling
Chen, Wei-Qing
Comparative efficacy of low volume versus traditional standard volume PEG on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: Protocol for an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis
title Comparative efficacy of low volume versus traditional standard volume PEG on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: Protocol for an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis
title_full Comparative efficacy of low volume versus traditional standard volume PEG on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: Protocol for an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis
title_fullStr Comparative efficacy of low volume versus traditional standard volume PEG on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: Protocol for an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparative efficacy of low volume versus traditional standard volume PEG on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: Protocol for an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis
title_short Comparative efficacy of low volume versus traditional standard volume PEG on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: Protocol for an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis
title_sort comparative efficacy of low volume versus traditional standard volume peg on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: protocol for an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5944532/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29703060
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000010599
work_keys_str_mv AT yilijuan comparativeefficacyoflowvolumeversustraditionalstandardvolumepegonbowelpreparationbeforecolonoscopyprotocolforanupdatedmetaanalysiswithtrialsequentialanalysis
AT tianxu comparativeefficacyoflowvolumeversustraditionalstandardvolumepegonbowelpreparationbeforecolonoscopyprotocolforanupdatedmetaanalysiswithtrialsequentialanalysis
AT piyuanping comparativeefficacyoflowvolumeversustraditionalstandardvolumepegonbowelpreparationbeforecolonoscopyprotocolforanupdatedmetaanalysiswithtrialsequentialanalysis
AT fengling comparativeefficacyoflowvolumeversustraditionalstandardvolumepegonbowelpreparationbeforecolonoscopyprotocolforanupdatedmetaanalysiswithtrialsequentialanalysis
AT chenhui comparativeefficacyoflowvolumeversustraditionalstandardvolumepegonbowelpreparationbeforecolonoscopyprotocolforanupdatedmetaanalysiswithtrialsequentialanalysis
AT liuxiaoling comparativeefficacyoflowvolumeversustraditionalstandardvolumepegonbowelpreparationbeforecolonoscopyprotocolforanupdatedmetaanalysiswithtrialsequentialanalysis
AT chenweiqing comparativeefficacyoflowvolumeversustraditionalstandardvolumepegonbowelpreparationbeforecolonoscopyprotocolforanupdatedmetaanalysiswithtrialsequentialanalysis