Polyethylene Glycol– or Sodium Picosulphate–Based Laxatives Before Colonoscopy in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this randomised study was to compare the quality of bowel cleansing using either polyethylene glycol (PEG) or sodium picosulphate (NaPico) (primary outcome) in relation to the tolerability and acceptance of these laxatives among children and their caregivers (secondary outcome). METHODS: The study was a randomised controlled trial that was conducted as an investigator-blinded study within the Department of Paediatrics of Skåne University Hospital in Malmö, Sweden. A total of 72 children (10-18 years of age) were randomly placed into 1 of 2 groups (PEG or NaPico). The Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Score was used to evaluate the quality of bowel cleansing. A total of 2 different questionnaires were used to evaluate both the acceptability and tolerability of the laxatives. RESULTS: In total, 71 children completed the bowel cleansing. Of these 71 cleanses, 67 protocols were analysed according to the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Score. No significant difference in bowel cleansing quality was detected between the 2 groups. Rates of acceptability and tolerability were significantly higher in the NaPico group than in the PEG group. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, both laxatives were found to be satisfactory in terms of aiding the performance of an uncomplicated and successful colonoscopy. NaPico was, however, more tolerable to the children than PEG, and both, the children and their caregivers, were more accepting of NaPico than of PEG. Consequently, NaPico can be recommended as the option for bowel cleansing in children ages 10 years and older.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".