Low-residue versus clear liquid diet before colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials

被引:78
作者
Nguyen, Douglas L. [1 ]
Jamal, M. Mazen [1 ]
Nguyen, Emily T. [2 ]
Puli, Srinivas R. [3 ]
Bechtold, Matthew L. [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Irvine, Dept Med, Irvine, CA 92717 USA
[2] Univ Calif Irvine, Dept Pharm, Irvine, CA USA
[3] Univ Illinois, Dept Med, Peoria, IL USA
[4] Univ Missouri, Dept Med, Div Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Columbia, MO USA
关键词
INADEQUATE BOWEL PREPARATION; LOW-FIBER DIET; POLYETHYLENE-GLYCOL; CT COLONOGRAPHY; PATIENT TOLERANCE; REDUCED-VOLUME; STANDARD DIET; QUALITY; IMPACT; EFFICACY;
D O I
10.1016/j.gie.2015.09.045
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background and Aims: Colonoscopy is extremely important for the identification and removal of precancerous polyps. Bowel preparation before colonoscopy is essential for adequate visualization. Traditionally, patients have been instructed to consume only clear liquids the day before a colonoscopy. However, recent studies have suggested using a low-residue diet, with varying results. We evaluated the outcomes of patients undergoing colonoscopy who consumed a clear liquid diet (CLD) versus low-residue diet (LRD) on the day before colonoscopy by a meta-analysis. Methods: Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane databases, and CINAHL were searched (February 2015). Studies involving adult patients undergoing colonoscopy examination and comparing LRD with CLD on the day before colonoscopy were included. The analysis was conducted by using the Mantel-Haenszel or DerSimonian and Laird models with the odds ratio (OR) to assess adequate bowel preparations, tolerability, willingness to repeat diet and preparation, and adverse effects. Results: Nine studies (1686 patients) were included. Patients consuming an LRD compared with a CLD demonstrated significantly higher odds of tolerability (OR 1.92; 95% CI, 1.36-2.70; P < .01) and willingness to repeat preparation (OR 1.86; 95% CI, 1.34-2.59; P < .01) with no differences in adequate bowel preparations (OR 1.21; 95% CI, 0.64-2.28; P = .58) or adverse effects (OR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.58-1.35; P = .57). Conclusion: An LRD before colonoscopy resulted in improved tolerability by patients and willingness to repeat preparation with no differences in preparation quality and adverse effects.
引用
收藏
页码:499 / U283
页数:10
相关论文
共 37 条
  • [1] Aronchick C., 1999, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V94, P2667
  • [2] Bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy: A continual search for excellence
    Bechtold, Matthew L.
    Choudhary, Abhishek
    [J]. WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2013, 19 (02) : 155 - 157
  • [3] A prospective study of factors that determine cecal intubation time at colonoscopy
    Bernstein, C
    Thorn, M
    Monsees, K
    Spell, R
    O'Connor, JB
    [J]. GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2005, 61 (01) : 72 - 75
  • [4] Butt J, 2014, GASTROINTEST ENDOS S, V79, pAB587
  • [5] A novel approach to extract colon lumen from CT images for virtual colonoscopy
    Chen, DQ
    Liang, ZR
    Wax, MR
    Li, LH
    Li, B
    Kaufman, AE
    [J]. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, 2000, 19 (12) : 1220 - 1226
  • [6] Patient Factors Predictive of Inadequate Bowel Preparation Using Polyethylene Glycol A Prospective Study in Korea
    Chung, Yong Woo
    Han, Dong Soo
    Park, Kwang Hyuk
    Kim, Kyoung Oh
    Park, Cheol Hee
    Hahn, Taeho
    Yoo, Kyo-Sang
    Park, Sang Hoon
    Kim, Jong Hyeok
    Park, Choong Kee
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2009, 43 (05) : 448 - 452
  • [7] Efficacy of bowel preparation with the use of a prepackaged, low fibre diet with a low sodium, magnesium citrate cathartic vs. a clear liquid diet with a standard sodium phosphate cathartic
    Delegge, M
    Kaplan, R
    [J]. ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, 2005, 21 (12) : 1491 - 1495
  • [8] Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study
    Froehlich, F
    Wietlisbach, V
    Gonvers, JJ
    Burnand, B
    Vader, JP
    [J]. GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2005, 61 (03) : 378 - 384
  • [9] GRADE working group, CRIT APPL US GRADE
  • [10] GRADE:: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
    Guyatt, Gordon H.
    Oxman, Andrew D.
    Vist, Gunn E.
    Kunz, Regina
    Falck-Ytter, Yngve
    Alonso-Coello, Pablo
    Schuenemann, Holger J.
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2008, 336 (7650): : 924 - 926