Pico-Salax Plus Two-Day Bisacodyl Is Superior to Pico-Salax Alone or Oral Sodium Phosphate for Colon Cleansing Before Colonoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study examined whether Pico-Salax alone or Pico-Salax plus bisacodyl tablets for two nights before colonoscopy afford superior efficacy, patient tolerance, and safety compared with oral sodium phosphate. METHODS: Patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to receive either Pico-Salax at 5 and 10 PM the night before colonoscopy plus bisacodyl 10 mg at 5 PM in the two earlier evenings (n=105), Pico-Salax alone at 5 and 10 PM the night before colonoscopy (n=109), or oral sodium phosphate at 5 and 10 PM the night (n=101) before colonoscopy. All groups were encouraged to drink 3-4 l of Gatorade or other clear fluids the night before the colonoscopy. RESULTS: Global scoring of cleansing efficacy using the Ottawa scale did not reveal differences among groups, but Pico-Salax plus bisacodyl was superior in cleansing the right colon compared with the other regimens (P=0.003), providing almost 50% improvement over oral sodium phosphate. Patient tolerance of Pico-Salax plus bisacodyl did not differ from Pico-Salax alone but was much better than oral sodium phosphate (P<0.0001). Hemodynamic and biochemical monitoring of patients on Pico-Salax plus bisacodyl suggests this regimen has a very strong safety profile. It does not differ from Pico-Salax alone, which lacks the hyperphosphatemia and hypocalcemia associated with oral sodium phosphate. CONCLUSIONS: Together, these data suggest that Pico-Salax plus bisacodyl provides enhanced colon cleansing in the right colon compared with Pico-Salax alone or oral sodium phosphate, but this finding does not compromise the much greater tolerability or the safety profile of Pico-Salax alone.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".