Comparison between Split Dose and Single Dose Bowel Laxatives for Preparation of Colonoscopy in Patients with Bangladeshi Diets: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Colonoscopy is an important diagnostic tool for colonic disease and its efficacy and safety have been correlated with adequate bowel preparation. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of single-dose and split-dose sodium picosulfate lavage as a colon cleansing agent for colonoscopy preparation. Methods: This randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Department of Gastroenterology in Sylhet MAG Osmani Medical College Hospital, Sylhet, Bangladesh from June 2021 to May 2022.A total of 110 patients were selected by randomized sampling technique who underwent elective colonoscopy and were divided into split-dose (n=57) and single-dose (n=53) laxative groups. Bowel preparation was assessed by the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS) and data were analyzed by SPSS 24.0. Result: The mean age of the patients was 47.4±17.7(SD) years in split-dose and 47.6±15.9 (SD) years in single-dose group. Both groups were statistically similar in terms of socio-demographic profile, medical history, clinical manifestation, and indication of colonoscopy (p>0.05). The mean of total OBPS score (4.39±2.0 vs 5.56±2.2, p=0.004) and caecal intubation time (6.60±3 vs 7.74±2.5, p=0.035) was lower significantly in split-dose than the single-dose group. However, colonoscopy findings, adverse events, and patient compliance were similar between groups (p>0.05). Conclusion: Split-dose is superior to single-dose bowel laxatives for colonoscopy preparation in terms of better mucosal cleanliness and lower caecal intubation time. However, further randomized controlled trial is recommended. J Bangladesh Coll Phys Surg 2024; 42: 329-335
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".