OBJECTIVE: Small-volume bowel preparations for colonoscopy has become increasingly popular due to improved tolerance by patients and equivalent efficacy compared with the larger volume preparations. Comparative studies, however, between small volume preparations are lacking. This randomized controlled trial aimed at comparing the efficacy and acceptability of phospo-soda buffered saline (Fleet) with sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate (Picoprep) in the preparation of patients for colonoscopy. METHOD: A randomized prospective trial designed to compare the efficacy and acceptability of Fleet with Picoprep in patients undergoing colonoscopy. RESULTS:Seventy-three patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive either Fleet or Picoprep as bowel preparation. Patients were asked to score the acceptability and to comment specifically on adverse events, namely headache, nausea and vomiting. The efficacy of the preparation was also assessed. The results showed no difference in efficacy (P = 0.06, chi(2) test), but there was a significant difference in acceptability (P = 0.01, chi(2) test). and side effects of patients suffering nausea (P = 0.003, chi(2) test), in favour of Picoprep. CONCLUSION: Whilst there was no difference in efficacy, there was a significant difference in acceptability and side effects in favour of Picoprep.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Small-volume bowel preparations for colonoscopy has become increasingly popular due to improved tolerance by patients and equivalent efficacy compared with the larger volume preparations. Comparative studies, however, between small volume preparations are lacking. This randomized controlled trial aimed at comparing the efficacy and acceptability of phospo-soda buffered saline (Fleet) with sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate (Picoprep) in the preparation of patients for colonoscopy. METHOD: A randomized prospective trial designed to compare the efficacy and acceptability of Fleet with Picoprep in patients undergoing colonoscopy. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive either Fleet or Picoprep as bowel preparation. Patients were asked to score the acceptability and to comment specifically on adverse events, namely headache, nausea and vomiting. The efficacy of the preparation was also assessed. The results showed no difference in efficacy (P = 0.06, chi(2) test), but there was a significant difference in acceptability (P = 0.01, chi(2) test). and side effects of patients suffering nausea (P = 0.003, chi(2) test), in favour of Picoprep. CONCLUSION: Whilst there was no difference in efficacy, there was a significant difference in acceptability and side effects in favour of Picoprep.