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
Meta-Analysis
. 2011 Apr 14:11:38.
doi: 10.1186/1471-230X-11-38.

Polyethylene glycol vs. sodium phosphate for bowel preparation: a treatment arm meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Ravi Juluri  1 , George Eckert, Thomas F Imperiale
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Polyethylene glycol vs. sodium phosphate for bowel preparation: a treatment arm meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Ravi Juluri et al. BMC Gastroenterol. .

Abstract

Background: Results of meta-analyses of randomized trials comparing PEG and NaP are inconsistent and have not included trials comparing either or both preps to less traditional ones.

Aim: To perform a meta-analysis by treatment arm.

Methods: Using MEDLINE and EMBASE, we identified English-language trials published from 1990 to 2008 that included PEG and/or NaP, and aggregated them by treatment arm into: 4 liter (L) PEG; 2 L PEG; split-dose PEG; two 45 ml doses of NaP +/- adjunctive medication; and NaP tablets. We compared prep quality and the proportion completing the prep.

Results: Among 71 trials (patient N = 10,201), excellent prep quality was present in 34% (CI, 26-41%) for 4 L PEG alone; 39% (CI, 26-51%) for 2 L PEG; 37% (CI, 28-46%) for split-dose PEG; 42% (CI, 33-51%) for NaP solution; 44% (CI, 38-51%) for NaP with adjunctive meds; and 58% (CI, 49-67%) for NaP tablets. Patients receiving NaP were more likely to complete the prep (97% [CI, 96-98%] vs. 90% [CI, 87-92%] for 4L PEG alone); however, completion rates for 2L PEG (98%) and split dose PEG (95%) were similar to NaP.

Conclusions: NaP tablets resulted in better prep quality and higher completion rates compared to other regimens. In comparisons limited by sample size, split dose PEG was not statistically different from NaP solution for completion rate or prep quality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart diagram for the studies identified in the meta-analysis.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot of preparation quality by treatment arm.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot of preparation completion/acceptability.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Wexner SD, Beck DE, Baron TH, Fanelli RD, Hyman N, Shen B, Wasco KE. American Society of C, Rectal S, American Society for Gastrointestinal E et al.A consensus document on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: prepared by a task force from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63:894–909. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2006.03.918. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Davila RE, Rajan E, Baron TH, Adler DG, Egan JV, Faigel DO, Gan SI, Hirota WK, Leighton JA, Lichtenstein D. et al.ASGE guideline: colorectal cancer screening and surveillance.[erratum appears in Gastrointest Endosc. 2006 May;63(6):892 Note: Adler, Douglas G [added]; Egan, James V [added]; Faigel, Douglas O [added]; Gan, Seng-Ian [added]; Hirota, William K [added]; Leighton, Jonathan A [added]; Lichtenstein, David [added]; Qureshi, Waqar A [added]; Shen, Bo [added]; Zuckerman, Marc J [added]; VanGuilder, Trina [added]; Fanelli, Robert D [added]] Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2006;63:546–557. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2006.02.002. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ, Melton LJ, Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ, Melton LJ. A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy. American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2002;97:3186–3194. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.07129.x. - DOI - 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;78:991–995. - PubMed
    1. Hsu CW, Imperiale TF. Meta-analysis and cost comparison of polyethylene glycol lavage versus sodium phosphate for colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 1998;48:276–282. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5107(98)70191-9. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types