International journal of colorectal disease · 2025
Combined linaclotide and polyethylene glycol electrolyte for colonoscopy preparation: a network meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials.
СтатьяNetwork Meta-AnalysisСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Elgendy Mohamed S, Rajab Islam, Najah Qasi, Faheem Mohamed A, Elsawy Omar K, Taha Hosam I, Elewidi Mariam, Shubietah Abdalhakim, Patel Dhruv, Farokhian Alisa, Abuelazm Mohamed, Baddoura Walid
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Recent evidence supports linaclotide (Lin) for colonoscopy preparation. This network meta-analysis evaluates the combination of different pill numbers of Lin with polyethylene glycol (PEG) (high and low volumes in liters (L)) for bowel cleansing.
METHODS: This systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis, conducted in October 2024, assessed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane, WOS, and Embase. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for categorical and continuous outcomes.
PROSPERO ID: CRD42024618272.
RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs with 4,764 participants showed that total Boston Bowel Preparation Scale improved significantly with 2L PEG + 2Lin (MD = 2.03, 95%CI: [0.30:3.76], P = 0.0217), 3L-PEG + 3Lin (MD = 1.30, 95%CI: [0.42:2.18], P = 0.0038), and 4L-PEG (MD = 1.11, 95%CI: 0.23-1.98, P = 0.0129). Adenoma detection was highest with 3L-PEG + 3Lin (RR = 1.60, 95%CI: [1.05:2.43], P = 0.0280), while polyp detection improved with 2L PEG + 3Lin (RR = 1.72, 95%CI: [1.13:2.62], P = 0.0114) and 3L-PEG + 3Lin (RR = 1.33, 95%CI: [1.00:1.77], P = 0.0505). Procedure times were significantly reduced with 3L-PEG + 3Lin (MD = -4.6, 95%CI: [-6.24:-3.24], P < 0.0001), 3L-PEG + 1Lin (P = 0.035), and 4L-PEG (P < 0.01). Abdominal pain and abdominal bloating decreased with 2L PEG + 1Lin (P < 0.01) and 2L PEG + 2Lin (P = 0.021) but increased with 4L-PEG (P = 0.0178).
CONCLUSIONS: Combining PEG with Lin improves bowel cleanliness compared to 3L-PEG, with 2L PEG + 2Lin being the most effective and well-tolerated. Despite some heterogeneity, the findings suggest that adding Lin may enhance bowel preparation with comparable safety, warranting consideration of individual patient factors.
METHODS: This systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis, conducted in October 2024, assessed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane, WOS, and Embase. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for categorical and continuous outcomes.
PROSPERO ID: CRD42024618272.
RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs with 4,764 participants showed that total Boston Bowel Preparation Scale improved significantly with 2L PEG + 2Lin (MD = 2.03, 95%CI: [0.30:3.76], P = 0.0217), 3L-PEG + 3Lin (MD = 1.30, 95%CI: [0.42:2.18], P = 0.0038), and 4L-PEG (MD = 1.11, 95%CI: 0.23-1.98, P = 0.0129). Adenoma detection was highest with 3L-PEG + 3Lin (RR = 1.60, 95%CI: [1.05:2.43], P = 0.0280), while polyp detection improved with 2L PEG + 3Lin (RR = 1.72, 95%CI: [1.13:2.62], P = 0.0114) and 3L-PEG + 3Lin (RR = 1.33, 95%CI: [1.00:1.77], P = 0.0505). Procedure times were significantly reduced with 3L-PEG + 3Lin (MD = -4.6, 95%CI: [-6.24:-3.24], P < 0.0001), 3L-PEG + 1Lin (P = 0.035), and 4L-PEG (P < 0.01). Abdominal pain and abdominal bloating decreased with 2L PEG + 1Lin (P < 0.01) and 2L PEG + 2Lin (P = 0.021) but increased with 4L-PEG (P = 0.0178).
CONCLUSIONS: Combining PEG with Lin improves bowel cleanliness compared to 3L-PEG, with 2L PEG + 2Lin being the most effective and well-tolerated. Despite some heterogeneity, the findings suggest that adding Lin may enhance bowel preparation with comparable safety, warranting consideration of individual patient factors.