Same-day 2-L PEG-citrate-simethicone plus bisacodyl<i>vs</i>split 4-L PEG: Bowel cleansing for late-morning colonoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, acceptability and feasibility of bisacodyl plus low volume polyethyleneglycol-citrate-simeticone (2-L PEG-CS) taken the same day as compared with conventional split-dose 4-L PEG for late morning colonoscopy. METHODS: Randomised, observer-blind, parallel group, comparative trial carried out in 2 centres. Out patients of both sexes, aged between 18 and 85 years, undergoing colonoscopy for diagnostic investigation, colorectal cancer screening or follow-up were eligible. The PEG-CS group received 3 bisacodyl tablets (4 tablets for patients with constipation) at bedtime and 2-L PEG-CS in the morning starting 5 h before colonoscopy. The control group received a conventional 4-L PEG formulation given as split regimen; the morning dose was taken with the same schedule of the low volume preparation. The Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS) score was used as the main outcome measure. RESULTS: A total of 164 subjects were enrolled and 154 completed the study; 78 in the PEG-CS group and 76 in the split 4-L PEG group. The two groups were comparable at baseline. The OBPS score in the PEG-CS group (3.09 ± 2.40) and in the PEG group (2.39 ± 2.55) were equivalent (difference +0.70; 95%CI: -0.09-1.48). This was confirmed by the rate of successful bowel cleansing in the PEG-CS group (89.7%) and in the PEG group (92.1%) (difference -2.4%; 95%CI: -11.40- 6.70). PEG-CS was superior in terms of mucosa visibility compared to PEG (85.7% vs 72.4%, P = 0.042). There were no significant differences in caecum intubation rate, time to reach the caecum and withdrawal time between the two groups. The adenoma detection rate was similar (PEG-CS 43.6% vs PEG 44.7%). No serious adverse events occurred. No difference was found in tolerability of the bowel preparations. Compliance was equal in both groups: more than 90% of subjects drunk the whole solution. Willingness to repeat the same bowel preparations was about 90% for both regimes. CONCLUSION: Same-day PEG-CS is feasible, effective as split-dose 4-L PEG for late morning colonoscopy and does not interfere with work and daily activities the day before colonoscopy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".