Bowel preparation for performing a colonoscopy: prospective randomized comparison study between a low-volume solution of polyethylene glycol and bisacodyl versus bisacodyl and a mannitol solution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Colonoscopy is currently the gold standard method to examine the colon, the rectum and the terminal ileum. In order to perform the colonoscopy, it is necessary to clean the bowel and use medications that are generally poorly tolerated by the patients. OBJECTIVE: Compare the tolerability, acceptability, safety and efficacy of two solutions used for intestinal preparation for a colonoscopy. METHODS: One hundred patients matched for sex and age were prospective randomized into two groups. Polyethylene glycol group received bisacodyl 10 mg plus 1 L of polyethylene glycol the night before and 1 L on the day of the exam. Mannitol group received bisacodyl 20 mg the day before and 1 L of a 10% mannitol solution on the day of the exam. The diet was the same for both groups. Tolerability and acceptability were measured using previously validated questionnaires. In terms of safety, variations in vital signs before and after the preparation were recorded, in addition to any complications. The quality of the preparation was graded based on the Boston and Ottawa scales. RESULTS: Ninety-six percent (96%) completed the study. As for tolerability, the mannitol preparation group exhibited a significantly higher frequency of nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and abdominal distension than polyethylene glycol group (P < 0.05). Acceptability was significantly better in polyethylene glycol group. The polyethylene glycol solution has also previously been shown to be safer than mannitol. No difference was observed in the quality of the preparation between the two preparation methods. CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions can be made: polyethylene glycol solution had higher tolerability, acceptability, and safety than the mannitol and should be used instead of mannitol. Both preparation solutions have similar efficacy.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".