Pico-Salax versus polyethylene glycol for bowel cleanout before colonoscopy in children: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Comparison of bowel preparation for colonoscopy in children with either Pico-Salax (sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate) or polyethylene glycol with electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this investigator-blinded, randomized controlled trial, 83 children (12.5 +/- 3.1 years) requiring elective colonoscopy at a referral hospital were randomly allocated to Pico-Salax (n = 43) or PEG-ELS (n = 40), and an intention-to treat analysis was applied. Pico-Salax was administered in two doses, one the evening before and one on the morning of the procedure. PEG-ELS was administered over 4 hours. Efficacy was scored using the Ottawa scale and other constructs. Tolerability and toxicity were measured by patient and nursing questionnaires and serum biochemistry. RESULTS: 35 of Pico-Salax patients (81 %) were satisfied or very satisfied with the cleanout, compared with 19 (48 %) in the PEG-ELS group (P = 0.001). No differences were found in bowel cleanout effectiveness, as judged by the Ottawa score (P = 0.24), completion rates (P = 0.69), colonoscopy duration (P = 0.59), need for enemas (P = 0.25), or physician's global impression (P = 0.7). Except for one case of mild dehydration in the Pico-Salax group, no clinically significant adverse events were recorded. Serum biochemistry results were similar between groups except for more hypermagnesemia associated with Pico-Salax and hypokalemia with PEG-ELS; neither was clinically significant. CONCLUSION: Children tolerate Pico-Salax better than PEG-ELS for bowel cleanout before colonoscopy. This study did not demonstrate superiority of effectiveness or safety for either regimen.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".