High‐ Versus Low‐Volume Polyethylene Glycol Plus Laxative Versus Sennosides for Colonoscopy Preparation in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Many protocols of bowel preparation are available for use in children; however, none of them is commonly accepted. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and acceptability of high-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) versus low-volume PEG combined with bisacodyl (BPEG) versus sennosides for colonoscopy preparation in children. METHODS: Participants ages 10 to 18 years were randomly assigned to receive either PEG 60 or PEG 30 mL kg⁻¹ day⁻¹ plus oral bisacodyl 10 to 15 mg/day or sennosides 2 mg kg⁻¹ day⁻¹ for 2 days. A blinded assessment of bowel cleansing was made by the endoscopist according to the Aronchick and Ottawa scales. Patient acceptability was evaluated with the visual-analog scale. Analysis was done on an available case analysis basis. RESULTS: Of 240 patients enrolled in the study 234 patients were available for analysis of the efficacy of colon cleansing. There were no significant differences found among the 3 groups for the proportions of participants with excellent/good (PEG: 35/79, BPEG: 26/79, sennosides 25/76) and poor/inadequate (PEG: 20/79, BPEG: 28/79, sennosides 28/76) bowel preparation evaluated with the Aronchick scale and for the mean Ottawa total score (PEG: 5.47 ± 3.63, BPEG: 6.22 ± 3.3, sennosides: 6.18 ± 3.53). Acceptability of bowel cleansing protocol was similar in all of the groups (P = 0.8). CONCLUSIONS: All 3 cleansing methods showed similar efficacy and tolerability; however, none of them was satisfactory.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".