Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale Research Articles

Evaluation of the efficacy of polyethylene glycol in combination with different doses of linaclotide in a fractionated bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled study

Background and aimThe ideal bowel cleansing program still needs to be explored. The aim was to compare the bowel cleansing effect and patient tolerance of low-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) combined with different doses of linaclotide in fractionated bowel preparation.MethodsThe subjects were randomly assigned to the 3LPEG group, 2LPEG + 2L group, or 2LPEG + L group. The primary outcome was to use the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS) to evaluate the efficacy of bowel cleansing, and the secondary outcomes were the detection rate of adenomas and polyps, adverse reactions, tolerance, and defecation dynamics; subsets of patients with chronic constipation and irritable bowel syndrome were also analyzed.ResultsA total of 753 patients were randomly assigned. In ITT analysis, the success of preparation of the 2LPEG + 2L group was better than that of the 2LPEG + L group or the 3LPEG group (92.0% vs. 82.3% vs. 82.1%; P = 0.002). Compared with the 3LPEG group, the 2LPEG + L group showed similar but non-inferior results (82.3% vs. 82.1%, P > 0.05). The 2LPEG + 2L group was similar to the 2LPEG + L group in terms of adverse reaction, tolerance, willingness to reuse, and sleep quality, but both were superior to the 3LPEG group. In a subgroup analysis of chronic constipation, the 2LPEG + 2L group had the best cleansing effect on the right colon and mid colon, while in the subgroup analysis of irritable bowel syndrome, the tolerance was better in the 2LPEG + 2L group and the 2LPEG + L group than the 3LPEG group.Conclusions2LPEG + 2L is a feasible bowel preparation regimen.

Telephone instructions improve the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

To evaluate the effect of telephone instructions on the quality of bowel preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Online English databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase) were screened for randomized controlled trials on telephone instructions regarding bowel preparation for colonoscopy from inception to April 15, 2022. After data extraction, the Review Manager software was used for meta-analysis. Nine randomized controlled trials with 3,836 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The rate of adequate bowel preparation was significantly higher in the telephone group than in the control group. The pooled relative risk (RR) was 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.30, P < 0.01). The pooled mean difference (MD) for the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score was 1.32 (95% CI: 0.15-2.49, P < 0.05), and that for the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale score was -1.93 (95% CI: -2.35 to -1.51, P < 0.01). The polyp detection rate was significantly higher in the telephone group than in the control group (RR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.23-2.04, P < 0.01), whereas no significant difference was noted in the adenoma detection rate between the groups (RR = 1.37, 95% CI: 0.97-1.94, P = 0.08). Telephone instructions for patients undergoing colonoscopy significantly improved the quality of bowel preparation and increased polyp detection rate.

Cleaning effect and tolerance of 16 bowel preparation regimens on adult patients before colonoscopy: a network meta-analysis.

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). Before a colonoscopy, an adequate bowel preparation (BP) is required. Currently, more novel regimens with different effects have been proposed and used successively. This network meta-analysis aims to compare the cleaning effects and patients' tolerability of several BP regimens. We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials including sixteen kinds of BP regimens. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The outcomes of this study were bowel cleansing effect and tolerance. We included a total of 40 articles with 13,064 patients. For the primary outcomes, polyethylene glycol (PEG) + ascorbic acid (Asc) + simethicone (Sim) (OR, 14.27, 95%CrI, 2.68-127.87) regimen is ranked first in Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). PEG + Sim (OR, 2.0, 95%CrI 0.64-6.4) regimen is ranked first in Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS), but without significant differences. For the secondary outcomes, PEG + Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate (SP/MC) (OR, 4.88e + 11, 95%CrI, 39.56-1.82e + 35) regimen is the best in cecal intubation rate(CIR). PEG + Sim (OR,1.5, 95%CrI, 1.0-2.2) regimen is ranked first in adenoma detection rate(ADR). Senna (OR, 3.23, 95%CrI, 1.04-9.97) and SP/MC (OR, 249.91, 95%CrI, 78.49-958.19) regimens are ranked first in abdominal pain and willingness to repeat, respectively. There is no significant difference in cecal intubation time (CIT), polyp detection rate (PDR), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal bloat. PEG + Asc + Sim regimen is more effective at cleaning the bowel. PEG + SP/MC will be helpful to increase CIR. For ADR, PEG + Sim regimen will be more helpful. In addition, PEG + Asc + Sim is the least likely to cause abdominal bloat, while Senna regimen is more likely to cause abdominal pain. Patients prefer to re-use the SP/MC regimen for bowel preparation.

Clean mucosal area detection of gastroenterologists versus artificial intelligence in small bowel capsule endoscopy.

Studies comparing the detection of clean mucosal areas in capsule endoscopy (CE) using human judgment versus artificial intelligence (AI) are rare. This study statistically analyzed gastroenterologist judgments and AI results. Three hundred CE video clips (100 patients) were prepared. Five gastroenterologists classified the video clips into 3 groups (≥75% [high], 50%-75% [middle], and < 50% [low]) according to their subjective judgment of cleanliness. Visualization scores were calculated using an AI algorithm based on the predicted visible area, and the 5 gastroenterologists' judgments and AI results were compared. The 5 gastroenterologists evaluated CE clip video quality as "high" in 10.7% to 36.7% and as "low" in 28.7% to 60.3% and 29.7% of cases, respectively. The AI evaluated CE clip video quality as "high" in 27.7% and as "low" in 29.7% of cases. Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed significant differences in the 6 evaluation indicators (5 gastroenterologists and 1 AI) (P < .001). Among the 300 judgments, 90 (30%) were consistent with 5 gastroenterologists' judgments, and 82 (91.1%) agreed with the AI judgments. The "high" and "low" judgments of the gastroenterologists and AI agreed in 95.0% and 94.9% of cases, respectively. Bonferroni's multiple comparison test showed no significant difference between 3 gastroenterologists and AI (P = .0961, P = 1.0000, and P = .0676, respectively) but a significant difference between the other 2 with AI (P < .0001). When evaluating CE images for cleanliness, the judgments of 5 gastroenterologists were relatively diverse. The AI produced a relatively universal judgment that was consistent with the gastroenterologists' judgements.

The efficacy and tolerability of sports drink versus water in bowel preparations: a randomised controlled study

BackgroundAn 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsA 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).ConclusionThe concomitant use of PEG + Mizone was a well tolerated and effective bowel preparation, compared with the PEG + water treatment.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04247386. Registered on 30 Jan 2020.

Optimizing bowel preparation for colonoscopy: A cross-sectional study of the Chinese population.

BackgroundThe quality of bowel preparation is an important factor in the success of colonoscopy. However, the quality of bowel preparation is often affected by multiple factors. The main objective of this study was to explore the specific factors that affect the quality of bowel preparation.MethodsPatients were consecutively recruited from the gastroenterology department in Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan from May 2018 to December 2018. All patients were undergoing colonoscopy. Bowel preparation was evaluated by the Ottawa Bowel preparation Scale (OBPS) and all patients were categorized into 2 groups according to the OBPS. Multivariate analysis was conducted to identify the factors associated with bowel preparation quality.ResultsA total of 910 patients were included in the analysis with an average age of 48.62 ± 13.57 years. Patient source (P < 0.001) and the preparation method (P = 0.029) were correlated with OBPS adequacy. In addition, after stratified by age, preparation method (P = 0.022) was a significant factor among patients under 50 years old; whereas waiting time (P = 0.005) was a significant factor among patients over 50 years old.ConclusionBowel preparation should be tailored based on the age of the patients to determine the most appropriate plan, including the most appropriate waiting time and the most appropriate purgative combination. Doctors should also focus more on the quality of bowel preparation in inpatients, who are more likely than outpatients to have an inadequate bowel preparation.

Same-day single-dose vs large-volume split-dose regimens of polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUNDSplit-dose regimens (SpDs) of 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) have been established as the “gold standard” for bowel preparation; however, its use is limited by the large volumes of fluids required and sleep disturbance associated with night doses. Meanwhile, the same-day single-dose regimens (SSDs) of PEG has been recommended as an alternative; however, its superiority compared to other regimens is a matter of debate.AIMTo compare the efficacy and tolerability between SSDs and large-volume SpDs PEG for bowel preparation.METHODSWe searched MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane Library, RCA, EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded for randomized trials comparing (2 L/4 L) SSDs to large-volume (4 L/3 L) SpDs PEG-based regimens, regardless of adjuvant laxative use. The pooled analysis of relative risk ratio and mean difference was calculated for bowel cleanliness, sleep disturbance, willingness to repeat the procedure using the same preparation and adverse effects. A random effects model or fixed-effects model was chosen based on heterogeneity analysis among studies.RESULTSA total of 18 studies were included. There was no statistically significant difference of adequate bowel preparation (relative risk = 0.97; 95%CI: 0.92-1.02) (14 trials), right colon Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (mean difference = 0.00; 95%CI: -0.04, 0.03) (9 trials) and right colon Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (mean difference = 0.04; 95%CI: -0.27, 0.34) (5 trials) between (2 L/4 L) SSDs and large-volume (4 L/3 L) SpDs, regardless of adjuvant laxative use. The pooled analysis favored the use of SSDs with less sleep disturbance (relative risk = 0.52; 95%CI: 0.40, 0.68) and lower incidence of abdominal pain (relative risk = 0.75; 95%CI: 0.62, 0.90). During subgroup analysis, patients that received low-volume (2 L) SSDs showed more willingness to repeat the procedure using the same preparation than SpDs (P < 0.05). No significant difference in adverse effects, including nausea, vomiting and bloating, was found between the two arms (P > 0.05).CONCLUSIONRegardless of adjuvant laxative use, the (2 L/4 L) SSD PEG-based arm was considered equal or better than the large-volume (≥ 3 L) SpDs PEG regimen in terms of bowel cleanliness and tolerability. Patients that received low-volume (2 L) SSDs showed more willingness to repeat the procedure using the same preparation due to the low-volume fluid requirement and less sleep disturbance.

Supplementary education can improve the rate of adequate bowel preparation in outpatients: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

Colonoscopy is widely used for the screening, diagnosis and treatment of intestinal diseases. Adequate bowel preparation is a prerequisite for high-quality colonoscopy. However, the rate of adequate bowel preparation in outpatients is low. Several studies on supplementary education methods have been conducted to improve the rate of adequate bowel preparation in outpatients. However, the controversial results presented encourage us to perform this meta-analysis. According to the PRISMA statement (2020), the meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO. We searched all studies up to August 28, 2021, in the three major electronic databases of PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation rate, and the secondary outcomes included bowel preparation quality score, polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, nonattendance rate and willingness to repeat rate. If there was obvious heterogeneity, the funnel plot combined with Egger's test, meta-regression analysis, sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were used to detect the source of heterogeneity. RevMan 5.3 and Stata 17.0 software were used for statistical analysis. A total of 2061 records were retrieved, and 21 full texts were ultimately included in the analysis. Our meta-analysis shows that supplementary education can increase the rate of adequate bowel preparation for outpatients (79.9% vs 72.9%, RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.08-1.20, I2 = 87%, p<0.00001). Supplementary education shortened the withdrawal time (MD: -0.80, 95% CI: -1.54 to -0.05, p = 0.04) of outpatients, increased the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (MD: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.44, p<0.00001), reduced the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (MD: -1.26, 95% CI: -1.66 to -0.86, p<0.00001) and increased the willingness to repeat (91.9% vs 81.4%, RR:1.14, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.25, p = 0.004). Supplementary education for outpatients based on the standard of care can significantly improve the quality of bowel preparation.

A Randomized Study Comparison between Split Dosage and Non-Split Dosage PEG-Electrolyte Solution Preparation Methods for Elective Colonoscopy

Background: A two liters low volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) electrolyte solution preparation was proposed for improving patients’ tolerability with either split or non-split dosage cleansing method. Patient compliance, adverse experiences, and cleansing efficacy of each anatomical segment of the colon using both methods should be determined. Objective: To assess the cleansing efficacy of split dosage versus non-split dosage PEG-electrolyte solution for each anatomical segment of the colon according to the inverted Ottawa bowel preparation scale. Materials and Methods: The present study was a prospective, randomized, endoscopist-blinded study. Volunteers that underwent elective screening colonoscopy were eligible for recruitment into the present study. Patients having any contraindication for colonoscopy, or the use of PEG-electrolyte solution such as bowel obstruction, intestinal perforation, or toxic megacolon were excluded. Cleansing efficacy was evaluated by the inverted Ottawa bowel preparation scale for each anatomical segment of the colon. Medical adherence and compliance were evaluated. Participants were asked to rate their satisfaction and inform the presence of any adverse experiences related to the bowel preparation method. Results: Ninety-four volunteers were randomly assigned to two groups. Of these, 46 received the split dosage cleansing method and 48 received the non-split dosages cleansing method. Overall compliance was approximately 94%, comparable for both preparation methods. Average age was 61.5 years for non-split dosage and 60.4 for split dosage group. Satisfaction score in the non-split dosage group was 8.46, which was not significantly different from 8.56 of the split dosage group (p=0.934). Split dosage PEG-electrolyte solution provided comparable degree of cleansing as standard non-split dosages preparation for transverse, descending, sigmoid, and rectum. However, split dosage provided significantly superior cleansing results over the non-split dosages method for ascending colon at good or excellent with 84.7% versus 47.9% (p&lt;0.01), and caecum at good or excellent for 76.1% versus 41.7% (p&lt;0.01) based on the inverted Ottawa bowel preparation scale. Conclusion: Split dosage PEG-electrolyte solution method provided significantly superior cleansing results over the non-split dosages method for right-side colon with comparable satisfaction score and rate of adverse events. Keywords: Bowel preparation; Split dosage cleansing; Quality of bowel preparation

Sodium Picosulphate with Magnesium Citrate versus Polyethylene Glycol for Bowel Preparation in Children: A Systematic Review.

PurposeTo compare the effectiveness, tolerability, acceptability, and safety of sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate (PS/Mg) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) in children (≤18 years) preparing for colonoscopy.MethodsThree electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched till July 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. At least two authors independently selected studies and performed risk of bias assessment and data extraction.ResultsFour RCTs (n=390), with overall good quality were included. A meta-analysis of two trials (n=224) found no statistically significant difference between the groups with respect to the proportion of patients who had excellent and good scores (≥6 points) according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (relative risk: 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90 to 1.08). Excellent and good scores were observed in both groups in approximately 90% of children. A meta-analysis of two other trials (n=150) showed no significant difference between the groups with respect to the mean total score for the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (mean difference: 0.20; 95% CI: −0.74 to 1.14). Both regimens provided a comparable safety profile; however, PS/Mg was significantly superior to high volume PEG in terms of tolerability (abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, bloating/flatulence/fullness) and acceptability (ease of formulation consumption, taste acceptance, need for nasogastric tube, compliance with full dose).ConclusionPS/Mg provides a quality and safety profile similar to PEG for bowel cleansing; however, it has better acceptance and tolerance in children preparing for colonoscopy.

Evaluating patient acceptability and bowel preparation efficacy of sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate for colonoscopy.

ObjectiveTo evaluate patient acceptability and bowel preparation efficacy of sodium picosulfate‐magnesium citrate (PICOPREP) for colonoscopy.MethodsA questionnaire survey regarding the patient acceptability of bowel preparation agent PICOPREP was administered to 54 patients, and its efficacy was evaluated using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS).ResultsEighteen (33.3%) participants reported that PICOPREP is very easy to drink, 30 (55.5%) easy, four (7.4%) acceptable, one (1.9%) difficult, and one (1.9%) very difficult. The flavor was very good as reported by eight (14.8%) participants, good by 25 (46.3%), neutral by 20 (37.0%), bad by one (1.9%), and very bad by none. The number of patients who requested PICOPREP was 42 (77.7%), indicating its high acceptability. Evaluation of the OBPS score showed that the rectosigmoid colon had significantly better polyethylene glycol (PEG) scores than PICOPREP, but the entire colon did not show a significant difference between PICOPREP and PEG scores (1.09 ± 0.65 vs. 1.17 ± 0.76, p = 0.632 in the right colon; 0.48 ± 0.52 vs. 0.72 ± 0.66, p = 0.079 in the mid colon, 0.93 ± 0.49 vs. 0.63 ± 0.52, p = 0.012 in the rectosigmoid colon, and 3.28 ± 1.70 vs. 3.20 ± 1.90, p = 0.836 in the entire colon).ConclusionPICOPREP is considered as one of the important options due to its good patient acceptability and high efficacy similar to PEG.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Low-Residue Diet Versus Clear Liquid Diet: Which Is Better for Bowel Preparation Before Colonoscopy?

The goal of this systematic review was to compare the clear liquid diet and the low-residue diet to determine which is better for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. A literature search for randomized controlled trials on the effects of employing the clear liquid diet and low-residue diets before colonoscopy was conducted in major online English databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid EMBASE). After the systematic review of all 16 studies, the outcomes including quality of bowel preparation, tolerance, willingness to repeat, and adverse effects were analyzed through meta-analysis. The statistical analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software. No statistically significant difference was observed between the low-residue diet and clear liquid diet groups (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 1.19 [0.79, 1.81]; p = .41). There was no statistically significant difference between the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (standard mean difference [95% confidence interval] =-0.04 [-0.21, -0.14]; p = .68) Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (standard mean difference [95% confidence interval] =-0.04 [-0.19, 0.11]; p = .59) scores of the two groups. The quality indicators for colonoscopy of the two groups were not statistically significant. However, patient tolerance to the low-residue diet was higher (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 1.86 [1.47, 2.36]; p < .01). More patients in the low-residue diet group were willing to repeat the low-residue diet for bowel preparation (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 2.34 [1.72, 3.17]; p < .01). More patients in the clear liquid diet group experienced hunger, nausea, and vomiting. People who employed the low-residue diet before colonoscopy had the same quality of bowel preparation as those with clear liquid diet. Meanwhile, the tolerance of people with low-residue diet was better than people with clear liquid diet, and these people were more willing to repeat the colonoscopy with less adverse events.

Mobile health technologies supporting colonoscopy preparation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BackgroundMobile health (mHealth) technologies are innovative solutions for delivering instructions to patients preparing for colonoscopy.ObjectiveTo systematically review the literature evaluating the effectiveness of mHealth technologies supporting colonoscopy preparation on patient and clinical outcomes.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of mHealth technologies for colonoscopy preparation on patient and clinical outcomes. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and appraised methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool. Data were pooled using random effects models and when heterogeneity, assessed using I2, was statistically significant, a qualitative synthesis of the data was performed. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot.ResultsTen RCTs (3,383 participants) met inclusion criteria. MHealth interventions included smartphone apps, SMS text messages, videos, camera apps, and a social media app. Outcomes were bowel cleanliness quality, user satisfaction, colonoscopy quality indicators (cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate), adherence to diet, and cancellation/no-show rates. MHealth interventions were associated with better bowel cleanliness scores on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.57, 95%CI 0.37–0.77, I2 = 60%, p = 0.08] and the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale [SMD -0.39, 95%CI -0.59–0.19, I2 = 45%, p = 0.16], but they were not associated with rates of willingness to repeat the colonoscopy using the same regimen [odds ratio (OR) 1.88, 95%CI 0.85–4.15, I2 = 48%, p = 0.12] or cancellations/no-shows [OR 0.96, 95%CI 0.68–1.35, I2 = 0%]. Most studies showed that adequate bowel preparation, user satisfaction and adherence to diet were better in the intervention groups compared to the control groups, while inconsistent findings were observed for the colonoscopy quality indicators. All trials were at high risk of bias for lack of participant blinding. Visual inspection of a funnel plot revealed publication bias.ConclusionsMHealth technologies show promise as a way to improve bowel cleanliness, but trials to date were of low methodological quality. High-quality research is required to understand the effectiveness of mHealth technologies on colonoscopy outcomes.

S0531 What Is the Ideal Dietary Regimen for Patients Scheduled for Colonoscopy: Low Residue Diet or Clear Liquid Diet? A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy screening and early detection of pre-cancerous polyps can significantly reduce both the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. The quality of bowel preparation before a colonoscopy is an important predictor of lesion identification. However, patients often cite bowel preparation and associated dietary restrictions as the greatest deterrents to having a colonoscopy. Traditionally, a clear liquid diet (CLD) is required the day before colonoscopy. Recent studies have investigated the use of a low-residue diet (LRD), with varying results. We evaluated various outcomes in patients undergoing colonoscopy who either consumed a CLD versus LRD on the day before colonoscopy. METHODS: A literature search was performed on Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases (April 2020). Studies included in our meta-analysis involved adult patients undergoing colonoscopy who either consumed a LRD or CLD on the day prior to colonoscopy. Analysis was conducted with the Mantel-Haenszel model using the odds ratio (OR) to assess adequate bowel preparations, tolerability, willingness to repeat diet and preparation, compliance with diet, adenoma and polyp detection rate, and overall adverse effects. RESULTS: 17 studies (4340 patients) were included the analysis. Findings suggest that consuming a LRD demonstrated no differences in terms of adequate bowel preparations (OR 1.31; 95% CI, 0.92–1.86; P = 0.14), compared with a CLD. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the scale used to assess the quality of the bowel preparation (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale, and Aronchick Scale) and demonstrated non-inferiority of each. There was higher tolerability (OR 2.21; 95% CI, 1.64–2.98; P < 0.0001) and willingness to repeat preparation (OR 1.90; 95% CI, 1.36–2.67; P = 0.0002) with no differences in compliance with dietary regimen (OR = 1.17; 95% CI, 0.60–2.27; P = 0.64), adenoma detection rate (OR = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.86–1.19; P = 0.92), polyp detection rate (OR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.87–1.04; P = 0.13), or overall adverse effects (OR 0.90; 95% CI, 0.73–1.13; P = 0 0.37). CONCLUSION: A low residue diet compared to a clear liquid diet prior to colonoscopy resulted in improved patient tolerability and willingness to repeat preparation with no differences in preparation quality. As a less restrictive dietary regimen, the low-residue diet may help improve patient participation in colorectal cancer screening programs.Figure 1.: Forest plot comparing the frequency of adequate bowel preparations while on a low-residue diet compared with a clear liquid diet consumed on the day prior to colonoscopy, performed with a sub-group analysis according to the scale used to determine adequacy of the preparation. BBPS, Boston Bowel Preparation Scale; CI, confidence interval; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel; OBPS, Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale.

A Randomized Trial Comparing the Bowel Cleansing Efficacy of Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate and Polyethylene Glycol/Bisacodyl (The Bowklean Study)

Bowel cleansing is essential for a successful colonoscopy, but the ideal clearing agent and the volume have yet to be determined. A small-volume cleanser is important for patient compliance. This study aimed to compare the bowel cleansing efficacy, safety, tolerability, and acceptability of a 300-mL small-volume sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (PSMC) preparation-Bowklean with one 2-L polyethylene glycol (PEG)/bisacodyl-Klean-Prep/Dulcolax preparation under identical dietary recommendations. This multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, pre-specified noninferiority study enrolled 631 outpatients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy (Bowklean = 316 and Klean-Prep/Dulcolax = 315). After bowel preparation, an independent evaluator blinded to the subject’s treatment allocation rated the quality of the colon cleansing. Efficacy was evaluated using the Aronchick Scale and Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OPBS). Safety was assessed by monitoring adverse events. Tolerability and acceptability were measured via a patient questionnaire. Bowklean was non-interior to Klean-Prep/Dulcolax in overall colon cleansing but was associated with significantly better preparation quality. Notably, Bowklean was associated with significantly greater tolerability and acceptability of bowel preparations than Klean-Prep/Dulcolax. Safety profiles did not differ significantly between the groups. Our data indicate that Bowklean is a more effective and better-tolerated bowel cleansing preparation before colonoscopy than Klean-Prep/Dulcolax. Bowklean may therefore increase positive attitudes toward colonoscopies and participation rates.

A159 ARE MOBILE HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES SUPPORTING COLONOSCOPY PREPARATION ASSOCIATED WITH BETTER PATIENT OUTCOMES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS

Abstract Background Mobile health technologies are innovative solutions for delivering instructions to patients preparing for their colonoscopy appointments. Aims To systematically review the literature of the effect of smartphone-based technologies supporting colonoscopy appointment preparation on patient outcomes. Methods With the assistance of a librarian, one author searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of smartphone-based technologies for colonoscopy preparation on bowel cleanliness and user satisfaction. Two independent reviewers extracted data on patient and intervention characteristics and study outcomes, and appraised study quality using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool. Summary statistics were generated using random effects models for the trials that used either the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BPPS) or the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using I2. Results Ten RCTs met our inclusion criteria. Smartphone-based interventions included apps, SMS text messages, video clips, camera apps, and social media apps. Most studies showed smartphone-based interventions were associated with better quality bowel cleanliness scores and higher user satisfaction compared to usual care. Standardized mean differences for the BBPS and OBPS differed between the intervention and control groups [SMD 0.57, 95%CI 0.18, 0.95] and [SMD -0.39, 95%CI -0.59, -0.19], respectively. Statistically significant statistical heterogeneity was found for the meta-analyses for the trials employing the BBPS (I2=80%, p=0.03) but not for the trials using the OBPS (I2=45%, p=0.16). All RCTs were at high risk of bias from non-blinded participants, and most studies were at high or unclear risk of bias due to lack of allocation concealment. Funnel plots to evaluate publication bias were not generated as there were too few studies with sufficient data to analyze. Conclusions This systematic review found that smartphone-based technology users had better bowel cleanliness quality scores and higher satisfaction with the method of delivering instructions compared to patients given usual care. Given that all RCTs were at high risk of bias, high-quality RCTs that blind participants and conceal study group allocation are needed. Funding Agencies CIHRDepartment of Medicine, McGill University and the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre

A novel artificial intelligence system for the assessment of bowel preparation (with video)

The quality of bowel preparation is an important factor that can affect the effectiveness of a colonoscopy. Several tools, such as the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale, have been developed to evaluate bowel preparation. However, understanding the differences between evaluation methods and consistently applying them can be challenging for endoscopists. There are also subjective biases and differences among endoscopists. Therefore, this study aimed to develop a novel, objective, and stable method for the assessment of bowel preparation through artificial intelligence. We used a deep convolutional neural network to develop this novel system. First, we retrospectively collected colonoscopy images to train the system and then compared its performance with endoscopists via a human-machine contest. Then, we applied this model to colonoscopy videos and developed a system named ENDOANGEL to provide bowel preparation scores every 30 seconds and to show the cumulative ratio of frames for each score during the withdrawal phase of the colonoscopy. ENDOANGEL achieved 93.33% accuracy in the human-machine contest with 120 images, which was better than that of all endoscopists. Moreover, ENDOANGEL achieved 80.00% accuracy among 100 images with bubbles. In 20 colonoscopy videos, accuracy was 89.04%, and ENDOANGEL continuously showed the accumulated percentage of the images for different BBPS scores during the withdrawal phase and prompted us for bowel preparation scores every 30 seconds. We provided a novel and more accurate evaluation method for bowel preparation and developed an objective and stable system-ENDOANGEL-that could be applied reliably and steadily in clinical settings.

Randomized Controlled Trial: Split-dose and Same-day Large Volume Bowel Preparation for Afternoon Colonoscopy Have Similar Quality of Preparation.

We compare bowel cleanliness in patients taking same-day versus split-dose 4-L polyethylene glycol laxative for afternoon colonoscopy. Secondary objectives included patient satisfaction, adverse effects and patient tolerability. Afternoon colonoscopies have been associated with inadequate bowel preparation and lower adenoma detection rates. Same-day (morning) or split-dosing of the laxative have improved preparation quality but differences between these options are unclear. Single-center prospective randomized endoscopist blinded trial. Patients aged 18 years and above prescribed 4-L polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy were randomized into same-day or split-dose preparation. Preparation quality was assessed using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale. Patient satisfaction and side effects was collected using a questionnaire. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis were performed. A total of 300 patients (158 split-dose, 142 same-day) were evaluated. No statistically significant difference was seen on total Ottawa score among the groups (P=0.47) or by individual colonic segments in intent-to-treat and per-protocol analysis. Patients in split-dose group were more likely to complete the entire preparation (P=0.01) but reported more sleep loss (P=0.001). The same-day preparation group reported higher incidence of vomiting (P=0.036). Patients ingesting bowel preparation ≥7 hours before colonoscopy had higher total Ottawa scores (P=0.001). There were no differences in quality of preparation in patients taking same-day versus split-dose preparation for afternoon colonoscopy. Those receiving same-day preparation were less likely to lose sleep but more likely to have emesis. These differences should be considered when selecting a bowel preparation regimen.

Augmentation with pre-emptive macrogol-based osmotic laxative does not significantly improve standard bowel preparation in unselected patients: A randomized trial.

Background and AimThe addition of a laxative prior to a standard bowel preparation (BP) has shown variable results in efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the BP. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of a macrogol‐augmented BP (M‐BP) with standard BP for routine colonoscopy in unselected patients.MethodsAdults undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to either M‐BP (one sachet of macrogol‐based osmotic laxative (MBOL) twice daily for eight doses prior to standard preparation) or BP (split‐dose of polyethylene glycol and sodium picosulfate). Bowel cleansing was assessed using the Ottawa BP scale. Risk factors for poor BP, patient satisfaction, and tolerance were recorded.ResultsThis randomized trial was stopped due to futility after 14 months; at that point, 92 subjects were randomized to the study arm and 102 to the control arm. M‐BP had a success rate of 71.7% (95% CI: 58.5–82.7%), while the BP had a success rate of 67.7% (95% CI: 54.9–78.8%), with a Pearson χ 2 test P‐value of 0.639, which exceeded the cut‐off for futility (0.313). In subgroup analyses, there were statistically significant decreases in the rates of successful BP in patients taking regular opioids and regular laxatives. Both preparations were well tolerated, with no difference between groups (BP – 5.3% and M‐BP – 6.6% P = 0.66).ConclusionThe addition of MBOL prior to a standard BP in unselected subjects does not significantly improve bowel cleanliness at routine colonoscopy. The role of this laxative in patients at high risk of poor preparation warrants further investigation.

A randomized clinical prospective trial comparing split-dose picosulfate/ magnesium citrate and polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy preparation.

BackgroundColonoscopy remains the gold standard for the investigation of abnormalities within the colon. However, its success is highly dependent on the quality of bowel preparation. The objective of this study was to compare the bowel preparation efficacy of picosulfate/magnesium citrate (PMC) vs polyethylene glycol (PEG) in a one-day vs two-day split dose regimen.MethodsA prospective, randomized, controlled trial was conducted at the Forzani & MacPhail Colon Cancer Screening Centre in Calgary, Canada. 171 colonoscopy outpatients were randomized to split-dose PMC or PEG lavage as well as into one-day split or two-day split regimens in blocks of eight. Bowel preparation quality was recorded in a blinded manner by the endoscopist using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS) prior to washing or suctioning. The scale results were analyzed using a two-factor analysis of variance.Results141 patients received complete colonoscopies (PMC-71; PEG-70). PEG was found to be superior to PMC (mean OBPS: 4.14 ± 2.64 vs 5.11 ± 3.44, p = 0.019), when adjusted for administration regimen, leading to significantly more adequate bowel preparations (79.7% vs 59.7%, p = 0.007). A two-day split dose was superior to a one-day split dose regimen (mean OBPS: 3.68± 2.82 vs 5.69 ± 3.06, p<0.001). Two-day split dosing also resulted in a better right colon cleanliness score (right bowel OBPS 1.27±0.11 vs 2.10±0.12 for one-day split, P<0.001).ConclusionsOptimal bowel preparation was achieved with the use of PEG lavage when administered in a two-day split dose regimen. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT01415687.