Efficacy of Bisacodyl Given as Part of a Polyethylene Glycol-based Bowel Preparation Prior to Colonoscopy in Hospitalized Patients: A Prospective Ramdomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Inpatient status can cause inadequate bowel preparation. The majority of previous studies regarding bowel preparation have focused on comparing the effects of different purgative regimens in outpatients. However, data on bowel preparation for inpatients are lacking. The aim of this study was to investigate whether bisacodyl plus polyethylene glycol (PEG) can improve bowel preparation in hospitalized patients. METHODS: A prospective, randomized and observer-blind study was performed. A total of 196 hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive 4 L PEG (PEG only group) or 4 L PEG＋bisacodyl 10 mg (bisacodyl added group). The adequacy of bowel preparation was scored using the Ottawa bowel preparation scale. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-three subjects completed the study; 96 in the bisacodyl added group and 87 in the PEG only group. There were no significant differences between the bisacodyl added group and the PEG only group with respect to the score of bowel cleansing (3.59±B1;2.81 vs. 3.82±B1;3.03, p=0.607), quality of bowel cleansing (adequate preparation 89.6% vs. 85.1%, p=0.380), and overall adverse events (66.7% vs. 52.9%, p=0.057). However, a larger proportion of patients in the PEG only group were able to ingest the entire solution as prescribed than in the bisacodyl added group (98.9% vs. 75.0%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized patients, the quality of bowel preparation did not differ depending on whether bisacodyl is added or not. In addition, patient compliance based on consumption of cleansing agent was better in the PEG only group.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".