BACKGROUND AND AIM: In Japan, patient acceptance of bowel preparation methods before colonoscopy remains unknown. This study was conducted to evaluate the patient acceptance of sodium phosphate (NaP) tablets and polyethylene glycol solution (PEG) with sodium picosulfate. METHODS:One hundred patients were randomized into one of the following two groups: the NaP tablet first-use group or the PEG with sodium picosulfate first-use group in a crossover design trial. Patient acceptance and incidence of adverse events were evaluated using a questionnaire. Colon-cleansing effectiveness was also evaluated. RESULTS: Patients' overall impressions of the preparations were significantly different between the NaP tablet (77.9%, 67/86) and PEG with sodium picosulfate (60.5%, 52/86; P = 0.001). Nausea incidence as an adverse event was significantly different between the two regimens (P = 0.03). Colon-cleansing effectiveness was not significantly different between the two regimens. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this crossover study showed that patient acceptance was similar to those previously reported in a parallel-group comparison. In Japanese patients, preference for and acceptance of NaP tablets was significantly higher than that for PEG with sodium picosulfate solution.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND AIM: In Japan, patient acceptance of bowel preparation methods before colonoscopy remains unknown. This study was conducted to evaluate the patient acceptance of sodium phosphate (NaP) tablets and polyethylene glycol solution (PEG) with sodium picosulfate. METHODS: One hundred patients were randomized into one of the following two groups: the NaP tablet first-use group or the PEG with sodium picosulfate first-use group in a crossover design trial. Patient acceptance and incidence of adverse events were evaluated using a questionnaire. Colon-cleansing effectiveness was also evaluated. RESULTS:Patients' overall impressions of the preparations were significantly different between the NaP tablet (77.9%, 67/86) and PEG with sodium picosulfate (60.5%, 52/86; P = 0.001). Nausea incidence as an adverse event was significantly different between the two regimens (P = 0.03). Colon-cleansing effectiveness was not significantly different between the two regimens. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this crossover study showed that patient acceptance was similar to those previously reported in a parallel-group comparison. In Japanese patients, preference for and acceptance of NaP tablets was significantly higher than that for PEG with sodium picosulfate solution.
Authors: Yoon Suk Jung; Chang Kyun Lee; Hyo Jong Kim; Chang Soo Eun; Dong Soo Han; Dong Il Park Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Mi Seon Kang; Tae Oh Kim; Eun Hee Seo; Da Kyung Jung; Mo Se Kim; Nae Yun Heo; Jong Ha Park; Seung Ha Park; Young Soo Moon Journal: Intest Res Date: 2014-01-28