Efficacy and safety of split-dose ultra-low-volume polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate for bowel preparation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Abdallfatah Abdallfatah, Ahmed W Hageen, Dania Albader, Abdulaziz Al-Tamimi, Khalid Alsalumi, Abdulrahman Alzmmam, Mahdi Abdullah, Laith Alreshaid, Saleh Aldhuwayhi, Nourah Almarri, Wala Fallatah, Abdullah Altamimi
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of split-dose ultra-low-volume polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate for bowel preparation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Abdallfatah Abdallfatah, Ahmed W Hageen, Dania Albader, Abdulaziz Al-Tamimi, Khalid Alsalumi, Abdulrahman Alzmmam, Mahdi Abdullah, Laith Alreshaid, Saleh Aldhuwayhi, Nourah Almarri, Wala Fallatah, Abdullah Altamimi","doi":"10.1097/MEG.0000000000003163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Colonoscopy remains the gold standard for early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer, with adequate bowel cleansing being pivotal for its success. This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of split-dose ultra-low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbic acid (Asc) versus sodium picosulfate magnesium citrate for bowel preparation. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive literature search across Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to July 2025. Data analysis was conducted using R version 4.2.2 (31 October 2022) and RStudio version 2022.07.2 (2009-2022, RStudio, Inc.) Our literature search yielded six eligible studies involving 3285 patients. Our findings indicate no significant differences in overall and right-sided colon adequate cleansing rates between the two regimens: risk ratio: 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99-1.12, P  = 0.1082; and risk ratio: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.99-1.08, P  = 0.1755, respectively. However, PEG + Asc demonstrated a significantly lower rate of vomiting compared to sodium picosulfate magnesium citrate (risk ratio: 2.58, 95% CI: 0.94-2.78, P  = 0.0008), suggesting better tolerability. Other secondary outcomes, including nausea, abdominal pain, and overall Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores, did not show significant differences. The quality of the evidence varied across the outcomes. Our results support the comparable efficacy of both bowel preparation agents while highlighting PEG + Asc's potential advantages in tolerability. Our findings suggest that the choice between these two preparations can be tailored to the specific patient, considering their preferences or previous experiences, although some caution is advised in interpreting these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":11999,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology","volume":" ","pages":"1121-1129"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0000000000003163","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Colonoscopy remains the gold standard for early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer, with adequate bowel cleansing being pivotal for its success. This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of split-dose ultra-low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbic acid (Asc) versus sodium picosulfate magnesium citrate for bowel preparation. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive literature search across Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to July 2025. Data analysis was conducted using R version 4.2.2 (31 October 2022) and RStudio version 2022.07.2 (2009-2022, RStudio, Inc.) Our literature search yielded six eligible studies involving 3285 patients. Our findings indicate no significant differences in overall and right-sided colon adequate cleansing rates between the two regimens: risk ratio: 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99-1.12, P  = 0.1082; and risk ratio: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.99-1.08, P  = 0.1755, respectively. However, PEG + Asc demonstrated a significantly lower rate of vomiting compared to sodium picosulfate magnesium citrate (risk ratio: 2.58, 95% CI: 0.94-2.78, P  = 0.0008), suggesting better tolerability. Other secondary outcomes, including nausea, abdominal pain, and overall Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores, did not show significant differences. The quality of the evidence varied across the outcomes. Our results support the comparable efficacy of both bowel preparation agents while highlighting PEG + Asc's potential advantages in tolerability. Our findings suggest that the choice between these two preparations can be tailored to the specific patient, considering their preferences or previous experiences, although some caution is advised in interpreting these findings.

分剂量超低体积聚乙二醇联合抗坏血酸与pico硫酸钠联合柠檬酸镁用于肠道准备的疗效和安全性:一项系统评价和荟萃分析
结肠镜检查仍然是早期发现和预防结直肠癌的黄金标准,充分的肠道清洁是其成功的关键。本系统综述旨在评价分剂量超低体积聚乙二醇(PEG)联合抗坏血酸(Asc)与picosulfate sodium picosulfate magnesium citrate用于肠道准备的疗效和安全性。根据系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目,我们对Embase、PubMed、Web of Science和Scopus进行了全面的文献检索,从成立到2025年7月。使用R 4.2.2版本(2022年10月31日)和RStudio版本2022.07.2 (2009-2022,RStudio, Inc.)进行数据分析。我们的文献检索得到6项符合条件的研究,涉及3285名患者。我们的研究结果显示,两种方案在总体和右侧结肠充分清洁率方面没有显著差异:风险比:1.05,95%可信区间(CI): 0.99-1.12, P = 0.1082;风险比:1.03,95% CI: 0.99 ~ 1.08, P = 0.1755。然而,与picosulfate magnesium cit酸钠相比,PEG + Asc的呕吐率显著降低(风险比:2.58,95% CI: 0.94-2.78, P = 0.0008),表明其耐受性更好。其他次要结局,包括恶心、腹痛和总体波士顿肠道准备量表评分,没有显示出显著差异。证据的质量因结果而异。我们的研究结果支持这两种肠道制剂的相当疗效,同时强调了PEG + Asc在耐受性方面的潜在优势。我们的研究结果表明,在这两种制剂之间的选择可以根据具体患者的喜好或以前的经验进行定制,尽管在解释这些发现时建议谨慎一些。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.80%
发文量
269
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology publishes papers reporting original clinical and scientific research which are of a high standard and which contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. The journal publishes three types of manuscript: in-depth reviews (by invitation only), full papers and case reports. Manuscripts submitted to the journal will be accepted on the understanding that the author has not previously submitted the paper to another journal or had the material published elsewhere. Authors are asked to disclose any affiliations, including financial, consultant, or institutional associations, that might lead to bias or a conflict of interest.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书