Clinical trial: an efficacy evaluation of reduced bisacodyl given as part of a polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution preparation prior to colonoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In an attempt to further improve patient preparation experience with reduced volume gut lavage solutions using 2-L sulphate-free electrolyte lavage solution plus 20-mg bisacodyl (HalfLytely with Bisacodyl Tablets Bowel Prep Kit, Braintree Laboratories, Inc., Braintree, MA, USA), a low bisacodyl dose preparation was developed using 10 mg bisacodyl. AIM: To compare preparation methods using the 10- or 20-mg bisacodyl with 2-L sulphate-free electrolyte lavage method. METHODS: At 10 US centres, 455 patients undergoing colonoscopy for routine clinical indications were equally randomized to receive 10- or 20-mg bisacodyl with 2-L sulphate-free electrolyte lavage method. Colonoscopists rated the efficacy of colon cleansing, blinded to the preparation assignment. RESULTS: Physician assessment of colon cleansing showed no difference between those randomized to receive the 10- or 20-mg bisacodyl preparations (P = 0.52). The 10-mg preparation had lower symptom scores for cramping (P < 0.001) and overall discomfort (P = 0.001). Other reported adverse experiences were few, mild and not different between groups. CONCLUSION: Two-litre sulphate-free electrolyte lavage method solution with 10-mg bisacodyl is as effective as the 20-mg bisacodyl preparation for cleansing the colon prior to colonoscopy. The 10-mg bisacodyl regimen has an improved safety profile, with significantly reduced cramping, nausea and overall discomfort.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".