Bowel Cleansing Quality in Morning Versus Evening Preparation Regimens for colonoscopy; a Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background :Evening preparation for colonoscopy is often unsatisfactory and inconvenient. This study was performed to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation at two different timings: night before and morning of endoscopy and to compare the cecal intubation rate and disturbance of sleep hours between these two groups. Methods: In this prospective randomized endoscopist- blinded trial, 150 patients were enrolled between March 2010 and August 2011. Patients aged between 18 to 80 years needing colonoscopy were included. Patients with prior bowel surgery, suspected bowel obstruction or those who didn't completely fulfill the preparation instructions were excluded. Patients received polyethyelen glycol electrolyte preparation in a morning and evening regimen. Bowel cleansing was scored using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale. Loss of sleep and cecal intubation rate was evaluated. Results: Seventy five patients received morning regimen and 75 patients received evening regimen. There was significant difference in total scores of bowel preparation for the two groups favoring the morning group (ρ < 0.0001) . Bowel cleansing for right and mid colon were significantly better in the morning group (ρ < 0.001), while the difference for the left colon was not significant. The cecal intubation rate was comparable for both groups ( ρ NS).Sleep was disturbed in 15 patients in morning group and in 42 patients in evening group (ρ = 0.003). Conclusion: In conclusion, this study suggests that morning preparation provide better quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy than evening preparation. Right and mid sided colonic preparation is superior in the patients who take the morning preparation than left sided preparation. Evening preparation is associated with a significant sleep disturbance. This would translate to considerable financial losses and patient discomfort.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".