Sodium phosphate versus polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy bowel preparation: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

被引:11
作者
Cheng, Ji [1 ]
Tao, Kaixiong [1 ]
Shuai, Xiaoming [1 ]
Gao, Jinbo [1 ]
机构
[1] Huazhong Univ Sci & Technol, Union Hosp, Dept Gastrointestinal Surg, Tongji Med Coll, 1277 Jiefang Ave, Wuhan, Hubei Province, Peoples R China
来源
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES | 2016年 / 30卷 / 09期
关键词
Sodium phosphate; Polyethylene glycol; Meta-analysis; Colonoscopy; Bowel preparation; Randomized controlled trials; LAVAGE SOLUTION; PARALLEL-GROUP; PEG SOLUTION; EFFICACY; TABLETS; QUALITY; TOLERABILITY; SAFETY;
D O I
10.1007/s00464-015-4716-6
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Adequate bowel cleansing is of great importance for a high-quality colonoscopy examination. Nevertheless, whether sodium phosphate or polyethylene glycol is a gold standard agent for bowel preparation is still under debate. In consideration of the clinical needs, we thus performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials concerning the comparison between both regimens. The efficacy, safety and acceptability of each regimen are major indicators to measure and appraise. By searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases, 15 original trials published from 2000 to 2014 were included as eligible studies. We carried out data extraction and subsequent pooling analysis for each indicator in a standard manner. Sensitivity analysis was performed by elimination of low-quality trials, while a funnel plot and Egger's test were employed to analyze the publication bias across studies. Our pooling analysis revealed that patients undergoing sodium phosphate as a cleansing agent displayed better acceptability, compliance, cleansing scores, preparation taste, polyp detection rate and less adverse effects including nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain (P < 0.05). In terms of procedure time, adequate preparation rate and electrolyte concentration, there was no significant difference between both regimens (P > 0.05). The pooling analysis offered stable conclusions which were verified by our sensitivity analysis. There was no publication bias across studies as a symmetric funnel plot was demonstrated and the result of Egger's test was P = 0.56. Regarding preparation efficacy, safety and acceptability, sodium phosphate was a better agent than polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy bowel cleansing, with its advantages of higher efficacy, better tolerability and acceptability as well as comparable safety.
引用
收藏
页码:4033 / 4041
页数:9
相关论文
共 32 条
[1]   Colorectal cancer prevention in Europe: Burden of disease and status of screening programs [J].
Altobelli, E. ;
Lattanzi, A. ;
Paduano, R. ;
Varassi, G. ;
di Orio, F. .
PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2014, 62 :132-141
[2]   A Comparison of 2 L of Polyethylene Glycol and 45 mL of Sodium Phosphate versus 4 L of Polyethylene Glycol for Bowel Cleansing: A Prospective Randomized Trial [J].
Bae, Suh Eun ;
Kim, Kyung-Jo ;
Eum, Jun Bum ;
Yang, Dong Hoon ;
Ye, Byong Duk ;
Byeon, Jeong-Sik ;
Myung, Seung-Jae ;
Yang, Suk-Kyun ;
Kim, Jin-Ho .
GUT AND LIVER, 2013, 7 (04) :423-429
[3]   Systematic review: adverse event reports for oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol [J].
Belsey, J. ;
Epstein, O. ;
Heresbach, D. .
ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, 2009, 29 (01) :15-28
[4]   Optimal Number of Endoscopic Biopsies in Diagnosis of Advanced Gastric and Colorectal Cancer [J].
Choi, Yeowon ;
Choi, Hyo Sun ;
Jeon, Woo Kyu ;
Kim, Byung Ik ;
Park, Dong Il ;
Cho, Yong Kyun ;
Kim, Hong Joo ;
Park, Jung Ho ;
Sohn, Chong Il .
JOURNAL OF KOREAN MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2012, 27 (01) :36-39
[5]   Assessing the quality of randomized trials:: Reliability of the Jadad scale [J].
Clark, HD ;
Wells, GA ;
Huët, C ;
McAlister, FA ;
Salmi, LR ;
Fergusson, D ;
Laupacis, A .
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1999, 20 (05) :448-452
[6]  
DAVIS GR, 1980, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V78, P991
[7]   A randomized, blinded, prospective trial to compare the safety and efficacy of three bowel-cleansing solutions for colonoscopy (HSG-01*) [J].
Ell, C ;
Fischbach, W ;
Keller, R ;
Dehe, M ;
Mayer, G ;
Schneider, B ;
Albrecht, U ;
Schuette, W .
ENDOSCOPY, 2003, 35 (04) :300-304
[8]   Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia [J].
Harewood, GC ;
Sharma, VK ;
de Garmo, P .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2003, 58 (01) :76-79
[9]   Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline [J].
Hassan, C. ;
Bretthauer, M. ;
Kaminski, M. F. ;
Polkowski, M. ;
Rembacken, B. ;
Saunders, B. ;
Benamouzig, R. ;
Holme, O. ;
Green, S. ;
Kuiper, T. ;
Marmo, R. ;
Omar, M. ;
Petruzziello, L. ;
Spada, C. ;
Zullo, A. ;
Dumonceau, J. M. .
ENDOSCOPY, 2013, 45 (02) :142-150
[10]   Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample [J].
Hozo S.P. ;
Djulbegovic B. ;
Hozo I. .
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 5 (1)