S449 Safety and Efficacy of Polyethylene Glycol and Linaclotide in Improving Bowel Preparation During Colonoscopy in Constipated Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Colonoscopy, a diagnostic and therapeutic procedure for gastrointestinal issues, requires adequate bowel preparation for optimal results. Polyethylene glycol solutions (PEG) are the standard for bowel preparation but its combination with linaclotide may enhance its efficacy and safety. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare PEG plus linaclotide with PEG alone for bowel preparation during colonoscopy. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov until November 2024 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PEG plus Linaclotide with PEG for colonoscopy preparation. The meta-analysis was performed using the R software (version 4.1.2). The relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were considered for assessing dichotomous and continuous outcomes. Forest plots were drawn to visualize effect size, and funnel plots assessed publication bias. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. Cochrane’s ROB2 scale was used to assess the quality of studies. Results: Seven RCTs including 4,851 patients were included in our study. Three studies used the Ottawa scale for bowel preparation with results favoring PEG plus Linaclotide group (WMD = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.01 - 0.69; P = 0.04; I2 = 48%) and 5 studies used the Boston score showing similar results (WMD = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.09-0.67; P = 0.01; I2 = 77%). Comparable results were found between both groups for adenoma detection rate (RR = 1.09; 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.22; P = 0.11; I2 = 0%) and polyp detection rate (RR = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.97-1.15; P = 0.16, I2 = 32%). However, PEG plus Linaclotide showed statistically significant reduction in vomiting (RR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.31-0.60, P < 0.01, I2 = 0%), nausea (RR = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.43–0.77; P < 0.01), bloating (RR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.68-0.88, P < 0.01), and abdominal pain (RR = 0.64; 95% CI = 0.47–0.86; P = 0.01) as compared to PEG alone. Conclusion: PEG plus Linaclotide showed better bowel preparation and fewer side effects than PEG alone, without compromising lesion detection rates. With a larger pooled sample size than previous studies, this meta-analysis supports PEG plus linaclotide as a preferred regimen for colonoscopy preparation.
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".