OBJECTIVE: Compare effectiveness of antegrade bowel preparation by liquid diet, polyethylenglycol (PEG) and electrolytes solution plus sennosides A and B, vs. liquid diet plus sennosides A and B only. BACKGROUND DATA: Preparation for colonoscopy with a balanced solution (PEG and electrolytes) has some physiological advantages. Nonetheless, drawbacks of such preparation include nasty flavor, large volumes and low availability in our country. METHOD: A randomized, comparative, prospective, transversal and blind trial that included 200 patients scheduled for colonoscopy were randomly assigned (one hundred each group) to receive: group 1: liquid diet, sennosides A and B and a two litter of solution with PEG and electrolytes; and group 2: liquid diet plus sennosides A and B. Compliance, tolerance and effectiveness of both preparations were evaluated blindly. The results were assessed by Student's T test. RESULTS: The effectiveness of group 2 preparation proved superior (p < 0.05) to group 1. Tolerance and side effects were similar for both groups with no related complications.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Compare effectiveness of antegrade bowel preparation by liquid diet, polyethylenglycol (PEG) and electrolytes solution plus sennosides A and B, vs. liquid diet plus sennosides A and B only. BACKGROUND DATA: Preparation for colonoscopy with a balanced solution (PEG and electrolytes) has some physiological advantages. Nonetheless, drawbacks of such preparation include nasty flavor, large volumes and low availability in our country. METHOD: A randomized, comparative, prospective, transversal and blind trial that included 200 patients scheduled for colonoscopy were randomly assigned (one hundred each group) to receive: group 1: liquid diet, sennosides A and B and a two litter of solution with PEG and electrolytes; and group 2: liquid diet plus sennosides A and B. Compliance, tolerance and effectiveness of both preparations were evaluated blindly. The results were assessed by Student's T test. RESULTS: The effectiveness of group 2 preparation proved superior (p < 0.05) to group 1. Tolerance and side effects were similar for both groups with no related complications.