Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2010 Jul;32(2):171-81.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2010.04326.x. Epub 2010 Apr 7.

Meta-analysis: randomized controlled trials of 4-L polyethylene glycol and sodium phosphate solution as bowel preparation for colonoscopy

R Juluri  1 , G Eckert, T F Imperiale
Affiliations
Review

Meta-analysis: randomized controlled trials of 4-L polyethylene glycol and sodium phosphate solution as bowel preparation for colonoscopy

R Juluri et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010 Jul.

Abstract

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing polyethylene glycol (PEG) with sodium phosphate (NaP) are inconsistent.

Aim: To compare the efficacy of and tolerance to PEG vs. NaP for bowel preparation.

Methods: We used MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify English-language RCTs published between 1990 and 2008 comparing 4-L PEG with two 45 mL doses of NaP in adults undergoing elective colonoscopy. We calculated the pooled odds ratios (ORs) for preparation quality and proportion of subjects completing the preparation.

Results: From 18 trials (n = 2792), subjects receiving NaP were more likely to have an excellent or good quality preparation than those receiving PEG (82% vs. 77%; OR = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.00). Among a subgroup of 10 trials in which prep quality was reported in greater detail, there were no differences in the proportions of excellent, good, fair or poor preparation quality. Among nine trials that assessed preparation completion rates, patients receiving NaP were more likely to complete the preparation than patients receiving 4-L PEG (3.9% vs. 9.8% respectively did not complete the preparation; OR = 0.40; CI, 0.17-0.88).

Conclusion: Among 18 head-to-head RCTs of NaP vs. 4-L PEG, NaP was more likely to be completed and to result in an excellent or good quality preparation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart diagram of the studies identified for the meta-analysis.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forrest plot of prep quality among the trials.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forrest plot of prep completion among the trials.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Funnel plot of prep quality.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Funnel plot of prep completion.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Seeff LC, Richards TB, Shapiro JA, et al. How many endoscopies are performed for colorectal cancer screening? Results from CDC's survey of endoscopic capacity.[see comment]. Gastroenterology. 2004;127(6):1670–7. - PubMed
    1. Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers J-J, Burnand B, Vader J-P. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2005;61(3):378–84. - PubMed
    1. Harewood GC, Sharma VK, de Garmo P, Harewood GC, Sharma VK, de Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2003;58(1):76–9. - PubMed
    1. Nicholson FB, Korman MG, Nicholson FB, Korman MG. Acceptance of flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy for screening and surveillance in colorectal cancer prevention. J Med Screen. 2005;12(2):89–95. - PubMed
    1. Davis GR, Santa Ana CA, Morawski SG, Fordtran JS. Development of a lavage solution associated with minimal water and electrolyte absorption or secretion. Gastroenterology. 1980;78(5 Pt 1):991–5. - PubMed