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.
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.
Authors: A M Glenny; D G Altman; F Song; C Sakarovitch; J J Deeks; R D'Amico; M Bradburn; A J Eastwood Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: G R Lichtenstein; N Grandhi; M Schmalz; S R Lottes; W P Forbes; K Walker; B Zhang Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2007-11-15 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: J Bradley Layton; Philip J Klemmer; Christian F Christiansen; Andrew S Bomback; John A Baron; Robert S Sandler; Abhijit V Kshirsagar Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2014-01-29 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Gaëlle Hautefeuille; Jean Lapuelle; Stanislas Chaussade; Thierry Ponchon; B Richard Molard; Pierre Coulom; René Laugier; Franck Henri; Guillaume Cadiot Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Maria W J van Vugt van Pinxteren; Mariëtte C A van Kouwen; Martijn G H van Oijen; Theo van Achterberg; Fokko M Nagengast Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Hervé Hagège; René Laugier; Stéphane Nahon; Pierre Coulom; Corinne Isnard-Bagnis; Annaïck Albert-Marty Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2015-05-05