Comparison of two schedules (previous evening versus same morning) of bowel preparation for colonoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Evening preparation for colonoscopy is often unsatisfactory and inconvenient. We performed this study to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation at two different timings: previous evening and same morning and to compare the loss of working hours and sleep between these groups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective, investigator blinded, randomized trial, 201 patients were enrolled from February to June 2005. Patients aged between 18 to 80 years needing colonoscopy were included. Patients with prior bowel surgery, suspected bowel obstruction or contraindications to phosphate preparation were excluded. Patients received a phosphate based preparation on the previous evening or morning of the procedure. The endoscopist and an observer scored bowel preparation using the Ottawa and Aronchick scales. Using the Ottawa scale right, middle and left colon were separately assessed. Loss of sleep and working hours were noted. RESULTS: One hundred and two patients received morning preparation and 99 patients received preparation on the previous evening. There was no significant difference in bowel preparation in both the groups using the Ottawa ( P = 0.87) or Aronchick ( P = 0.22) scales. Bowel preparation for right colon was significantly better in the morning group ( P = 0.008). More working hours were lost in the evening group (7.99 vs 10.17, P< 0.001). Sleep was disturbed in 15 patients in morning group and in 42 patients in evening group ( P< 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both preparations had similar efficacy. Right side preparation was significantly better in the morning group. Evening preparation was associated with loss of more working hours and sleep.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".