A Randomized Trial of Split-Dose PEG-Electrolyte Plus Menthol Candy Versus Reduced-Volume PEG-Electrolyte Plus Ascorbic Acid for Colonoscopy Preparation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Colon preparations are generally poorly tolerated and vary in palatability and efficacy. We aimed to compare the efficacy and palatability of 4L PEG plus sugar-free menthol candy (PEG+M) versus reduced-volume, ascorbic acid-supplemented PEG (AscPEG), both split-dosed with minimal dietary restriction. Methods: Two hundred ambulatory patients scheduled for elective colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled. Exclusion criteria included common contraindications to colonoscopy or bowel preparation. Patients were randomized to receive either PEG+M or AscPEG (100 per arm). Patients were interviewed prior to colonoscopy and asked to report the preparation’s palatability, willingness to retake it, and estimate the remaining volume. Palatability was assessed on a linear scale of 1 to 5 (1=disgusting; 5=tasty). Quality of preparation was scored by assignment-blinded endoscopists using the modified Aronchick and Ottawa scales. The main outcomes assessed were the palatability and efficacy of the preparation. Results: PEG+M was more palatable than AscPEG (76% vs. 62%; P=.03). Completing the preparation was not different between groups (91% PEG+M vs. 86% AscPEG; P=.38) but more patients were willing to retake PEG+M (54% vs. 40% respectively; P=.047). There was no significant difference between PEG+M vs. AscPEG in adequate cleansing on both the Aronchick (82% vs. 77%; P=.31) and the Ottawa scale (85% vs. 74%; P=.054). However, PEG+M received significantly more excellent ratings than AscPEG on the Aronchick scale (61% vs. 43%; P=.009). Both preparations performed less well in afternoon vs. morning examinations (inadequate: 29% vs. 15.2%; P=.02). Conclusion: Both split-dose preparations are effective at adequate colon cleansing with minimal dietary restrictions. 4L PEG plus sugar-free menthol candy has better palatability and acceptability than reducedvolume, ascorbic acid-supplemented PEG, and is associated with a higher rate of excellent preparations.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".