The efficacy and tolerability of polyethylglycol solution with and without bisacodyl in preparation of colon before colonoscopy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the efficacy of four liter Polyethylin glycol alone with two liter polyethylin glycol plus bisacodyl in preparation of large bowel before colonoscopy. Study Design: Randomized Control Trial. Setting: Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and GI Endoscopy, SZABMU, Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, Islamabad. Period: 1st January 2021 to 31st December 2021. Material & Methods: One hundred seventy patients, both males and females, who had indications for colonoscopy were included. After informed consent two equal groups of 85 were made. In group A, bisacodyl was added with two liters polyethylin glycol while in group B four liter Polyethylin glycol alone was used to prepare the gut before colonoscopy. Results: Out of 170 patients, the calculated Ottawa score was almost same in both groups. Extraordinary cleaning was found more regularly within the combination group (p < 0.05). No intense adverse effects were found among the 2 regimens besides nausea, abdominal pain, and anal irritation which were seen a bit more in group B. The tolerability was better with bisacodyl and 2-L PEG preparation (P<0.05). Conclusion: 2 L PEG+ bisacodyl preparation is a good alternative to 4-L PEG preparation for bowel cleansing, with distinct advantages in terms of tolerability, acceptability and compliance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".