Trials · 2022
The efficacy and tolerability of sports drink versus water in bowel preparations: a randomised controlled study.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Zhang Zhixin, Gao Hui, Yuan Xin, Liu Cenqin, Bao Zhenfei, Yu Siyi, Xie Haofen, Wang Weihong, Xie Jiarong, Xu Lei
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: An optimal bowel preparation can result in an improved colonoscopy. This study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of the use of a sports drink (Mizone) plus polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution with a water plus PEG solution in bowel preparations.
METHODS: This was a randomised controlled study. All of the included patients were randomly divided into the following two groups: the PEG + Mizone group and the PEG + water group. The palatability of the solution was measured through the use of questionnaires. Additionally, bowel cleanliness was evaluated according to the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS, 0-14, with higher values indicating worse cleanliness), as well as with the aid of colonoscopy videos.
RESULTS: A total of 270 patients were enrolled. The rate of adequate bowel preparation was 74.8% in the PEG + Mizone group and 68.9% in the PEG + water group, with a risk difference of 5.9% (95% CI: - 4.8-16.6%), which indicated noninferiority (noninferiority margin: - 9.5% < - 4.8%). However, patients rated the palatability (65.9% vs 44.4%, P < 0.001) and willingness to recommend or repeat (88.9% vs 75.6%, P = 0.004) the administration of the PEG + Mizone preparation as being better than those of the PEG + water preparation. The rates of adverse events during the bowel preparations were not significantly different between the two groups, except for bloating (PEG + Mizone vs PEG + water, 4.4% vs 13.3%, P = 0.010).
CONCLUSION: The concomitant use of PEG + Mizone was a well tolerated and effective bowel preparation, compared with the PEG + water treatment.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04247386 . Registered on 30 Jan 2020.
METHODS: This was a randomised controlled study. All of the included patients were randomly divided into the following two groups: the PEG + Mizone group and the PEG + water group. The palatability of the solution was measured through the use of questionnaires. Additionally, bowel cleanliness was evaluated according to the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS, 0-14, with higher values indicating worse cleanliness), as well as with the aid of colonoscopy videos.
RESULTS: A total of 270 patients were enrolled. The rate of adequate bowel preparation was 74.8% in the PEG + Mizone group and 68.9% in the PEG + water group, with a risk difference of 5.9% (95% CI: - 4.8-16.6%), which indicated noninferiority (noninferiority margin: - 9.5% < - 4.8%). However, patients rated the palatability (65.9% vs 44.4%, P < 0.001) and willingness to recommend or repeat (88.9% vs 75.6%, P = 0.004) the administration of the PEG + Mizone preparation as being better than those of the PEG + water preparation. The rates of adverse events during the bowel preparations were not significantly different between the two groups, except for bloating (PEG + Mizone vs PEG + water, 4.4% vs 13.3%, P = 0.010).
CONCLUSION: The concomitant use of PEG + Mizone was a well tolerated and effective bowel preparation, compared with the PEG + water treatment.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04247386 . Registered on 30 Jan 2020.