FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2150613141> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2150613141 endingPage "1231" @default.
• W2150613141 startingPage "1225" @default.
• W2150613141 abstract "Background & AimsAdequate bowel cleansing is an important determinant of the efficacy of screening colonoscopy. Polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based solutions are used commonly in bowel preparation, but their poor palatability and large volumes (4 L) influence compliance. Adjunct therapies, such as bisacodyl, split-dose regimens, and lower-volume regimens have been tested. We performed a meta-analysis to determine whether a 4-L split dose of PEG is better than others for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database, recent abstracts from major conference proceedings, references from selected reviews and randomized trials (http://clinicaltrials.gov), and Google Scholar, through September 2011, for high-quality, randomized trials that compared 4-L split-dose PEG without adjunct therapy with other bowel preparation methods. Nine of 2477 trials considered were used in the analysis. We calculated pooled estimates of bowel preparation quality (primary outcome: excellent or good), preparation compliance, favorable overall experiences, willingness to repeat same preparation, and side effects. We calculated pooled estimates of odds ratios by fixed- and random-effects models. We also assessed heterogeneity among studies and publication bias.ResultsThe overall pooled odds ratio for excellent or good bowel preparation quality for 4-L split-dose PEG was 3.46, compared with other methods (95% confidence interval, 2.45–4.89; P < .01). Although there was significant heterogeneity in results among studies, 7 of 9 reported a significant benefit from the 4-L split-dose PEG preparation. There were no significant differences between PEG and others in preparation compliance, favorable overall experience, willingness to repeat the same preparation, abdominal cramping, nausea, or sleep disturbance. There was no significant publication bias based on funnel plot.ConclusionsA meta-analysis showed that 4-L split-dose PEG is better than other bowel preparation methods for colonoscopy. Significant heterogeneity among studies might result from differences in patient demographics and protocols. A 4-L split dose of PEG should be considered the standard with which new bowel preparation methods are compared. Adequate bowel cleansing is an important determinant of the efficacy of screening colonoscopy. Polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based solutions are used commonly in bowel preparation, but their poor palatability and large volumes (4 L) influence compliance. Adjunct therapies, such as bisacodyl, split-dose regimens, and lower-volume regimens have been tested. We performed a meta-analysis to determine whether a 4-L split dose of PEG is better than others for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy. We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database, recent abstracts from major conference proceedings, references from selected reviews and randomized trials (http://clinicaltrials.gov), and Google Scholar, through September 2011, for high-quality, randomized trials that compared 4-L split-dose PEG without adjunct therapy with other bowel preparation methods. Nine of 2477 trials considered were used in the analysis. We calculated pooled estimates of bowel preparation quality (primary outcome: excellent or good), preparation compliance, favorable overall experiences, willingness to repeat same preparation, and side effects. We calculated pooled estimates of odds ratios by fixed- and random-effects models. We also assessed heterogeneity among studies and publication bias. The overall pooled odds ratio for excellent or good bowel preparation quality for 4-L split-dose PEG was 3.46, compared with other methods (95% confidence interval, 2.45–4.89; P < .01). Although there was significant heterogeneity in results among studies, 7 of 9 reported a significant benefit from the 4-L split-dose PEG preparation. There were no significant differences between PEG and others in preparation compliance, favorable overall experience, willingness to repeat the same preparation, abdominal cramping, nausea, or sleep disturbance. There was no significant publication bias based on funnel plot. A meta-analysis showed that 4-L split-dose PEG is better than other bowel preparation methods for colonoscopy. Significant heterogeneity among studies might result from differences in patient demographics and protocols. A 4-L split dose of PEG should be considered the standard with which new bowel preparation methods are compared." @default.
• W2150613141 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2150613141 creator A5009097451 @default.
• W2150613141 creator A5010205382 @default.
• W2150613141 creator A5029517825 @default.
• W2150613141 creator A5047243765 @default.
• W2150613141 creator A5067480767 @default.
• W2150613141 date "2012-11-01" @default.
• W2150613141 modified "2023-10-02" @default.
• W2150613141 title "4-Liter Split-Dose Polyethylene Glycol Is Superior to Other Bowel Preparations, Based on Systematic Review and Meta-analysis" @default.
• W2150613141 cites W1964258420 @default.
• W2150613141 cites W1972537482 @default.
• W2150613141 cites W1986215651 @default.
• W2150613141 cites W1986689323 @default.
• W2150613141 cites W1988712702 @default.
• W2150613141 cites W1988912376 @default.
• W2150613141 cites W1998056348 @default.
• W2150613141 cites W2007216121 @default.
• W2150613141 cites W2007904517 @default.
• W2150613141 cites W2008874309 @default.
• W2150613141 cites W2012932483 @default.
• W2150613141 cites W2025059438 @default.
• W2150613141 cites W2037645877 @default.
• W2150613141 cites W2038162182 @default.
• W2150613141 cites W2052133095 @default.
• W2150613141 cites W2065957536 @default.
• W2150613141 cites W2115147514 @default.
• W2150613141 cites W2118256990 @default.
• W2150613141 cites W2119404638 @default.
• W2150613141 cites W2123845707 @default.
• W2150613141 cites W2140876736 @default.
• W2150613141 cites W2153113248 @default.
• W2150613141 cites W2165188436 @default.
• W2150613141 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2012.08.029" @default.
• W2150613141 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22940741" @default.
• W2150613141 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2150613141 type Work @default.
• W2150613141 sameAs 2150613141 @default.
• W2150613141 citedByCount "159" @default.
• W2150613141 countsByYear W21506131412012 @default.
• W2150613141 countsByYear W21506131412013 @default.
• W2150613141 countsByYear W21506131412014 @default.
• W2150613141 countsByYear W21506131412015 @default.
• W2150613141 countsByYear W21506131412016 @default.
• W2150613141 countsByYear W21506131412017 @default.
• W2150613141 countsByYear W21506131412018 @default.
• W2150613141 countsByYear W21506131412019 @default.
• W2150613141 countsByYear W21506131412020 @default.
• W2150613141 countsByYear W21506131412021 @default.
• W2150613141 countsByYear W21506131412022 @default.
• W2150613141 countsByYear W21506131412023 @default.
• W2150613141 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2150613141 hasAuthorship W2150613141A5009097451 @default.
• W2150613141 hasAuthorship W2150613141A5010205382 @default.
• W2150613141 hasAuthorship W2150613141A5029517825 @default.
• W2150613141 hasAuthorship W2150613141A5047243765 @default.
• W2150613141 hasAuthorship W2150613141A5067480767 @default.
• W2150613141 hasBestOaLocation W21506131411 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConcept C156957248 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConcept C2776478404 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConcept C2778435480 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConcept C44249647 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConcept C526805850 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConcept C54400483 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConcept C95190672 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConceptScore W2150613141C10138342 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConceptScore W2150613141C121608353 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConceptScore W2150613141C126322002 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConceptScore W2150613141C141071460 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConceptScore W2150613141C156957248 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConceptScore W2150613141C162324750 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConceptScore W2150613141C168563851 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConceptScore W2150613141C2776478404 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConceptScore W2150613141C2778435480 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConceptScore W2150613141C44249647 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConceptScore W2150613141C526805850 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConceptScore W2150613141C54400483 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConceptScore W2150613141C71924100 @default.
• W2150613141 hasConceptScore W2150613141C95190672 @default.
• W2150613141 hasIssue "11" @default.
• W2150613141 hasLocation W21506131411 @default.
• W2150613141 hasLocation W21506131412 @default.
• W2150613141 hasOpenAccess W2150613141 @default.
• W2150613141 hasPrimaryLocation W21506131411 @default.
• W2150613141 hasRelatedWork W2022808982 @default.
• W2150613141 hasRelatedWork W2047252483 @default.
• W2150613141 hasRelatedWork W2091568553 @default.
• W2150613141 hasRelatedWork W2286371484 @default.
• W2150613141 hasRelatedWork W2318119155 @default.
• W2150613141 hasRelatedWork W2381982637 @default.
• W2150613141 hasRelatedWork W2551851192 @default.

• next