The Efficacy of Senna Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Hefeng Tian, Ying Fan, Lei Yang, Sai Hou, Wen Huang, Ruizhi Dong, Shaodong Li, Xuanrui Zhu, Wenlong Liu, Guanghuan Shi, Xiaoke Li, Shiping Zhou, Xiu Wang
{"title":"The Efficacy of Senna Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Hefeng Tian,&nbsp;Ying Fan,&nbsp;Lei Yang,&nbsp;Sai Hou,&nbsp;Wen Huang,&nbsp;Ruizhi Dong,&nbsp;Shaodong Li,&nbsp;Xuanrui Zhu,&nbsp;Wenlong Liu,&nbsp;Guanghuan Shi,&nbsp;Xiaoke Li,&nbsp;Shiping Zhou,&nbsp;Xiu Wang","doi":"10.1097/SGA.0000000000000664","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The quality of bowel preparation is an extremely important determinant of colonoscopy results. However, the efficacy of senna regimens in improving bowel cleanliness is uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize data on whether using a senna bowel preparation regimen enhances the bowel cleanliness. We searched Web of Science Core Collection, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases (from the inception to August 2021). The primary efficacy outcome was bowel cleanliness. Secondary outcomes included patient compliance, tolerance, and adverse events. Eleven trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria (3,343 patients. Overall, we found no significant differences in bowel cleanliness between the senna regimen and other bowel preparation regimens (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.02 [0.63, 1.67], p = 0.93). There was significant difference in tolerance (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.66 [1.08, 2.54], p = .02) and compliance (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 3.05 [1.42, 6.55], p = .004). The senna regimen yielded a significantly greater proportion of no nausea (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.84 [1.45, 2.32]) and vomiting (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.65 [0.81, 3.35]). Compared with other bowel preparation regimens, the senna regimen may be effective and safe in bowel cleaning before colonoscopy, with superior compliance and tolerance.</p>","PeriodicalId":504885,"journal":{"name":"Gastroenterology nursing : the official journal of the Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates","volume":" ","pages":"428-439"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastroenterology nursing : the official journal of the Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SGA.0000000000000664","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/6/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The quality of bowel preparation is an extremely important determinant of colonoscopy results. However, the efficacy of senna regimens in improving bowel cleanliness is uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize data on whether using a senna bowel preparation regimen enhances the bowel cleanliness. We searched Web of Science Core Collection, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases (from the inception to August 2021). The primary efficacy outcome was bowel cleanliness. Secondary outcomes included patient compliance, tolerance, and adverse events. Eleven trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria (3,343 patients. Overall, we found no significant differences in bowel cleanliness between the senna regimen and other bowel preparation regimens (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.02 [0.63, 1.67], p = 0.93). There was significant difference in tolerance (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.66 [1.08, 2.54], p = .02) and compliance (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 3.05 [1.42, 6.55], p = .004). The senna regimen yielded a significantly greater proportion of no nausea (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.84 [1.45, 2.32]) and vomiting (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.65 [0.81, 3.35]). Compared with other bowel preparation regimens, the senna regimen may be effective and safe in bowel cleaning before colonoscopy, with superior compliance and tolerance.

番泻肠制剂用于结肠镜检查的疗效:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
肠道准备的质量是结肠镜检查结果的一个极其重要的决定因素。然而,番泻草方案在改善肠道清洁方面的功效尚不确定。我们进行了一项系统综述和荟萃分析,以综合有关使用番泻草肠道准备方案是否能提高肠道清洁度的数据。我们检索了Web of Science Core Collection、MEDLINE、PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library和Scopus数据库(从开始到2021年8月)。主要疗效指标为肠道清洁度。次要结局包括患者依从性、耐受性和不良事件。11项试验(3343例患者)符合纳入标准。总体而言,我们发现塞蕉叶方案与其他肠道准备方案在肠道清洁度方面无显著差异(优势比[95%置信区间]:1.02 [0.63,1.67],p = 0.93)。耐受性(优势比[95%置信区间]:1.66 [1.08,2.54],p = 0.02)和依从性(优势比[95%置信区间]:3.05 [1.42,6.55],p = 0.004)差异有统计学意义。塞纳方案无恶心(优势比[95%可信区间]:1.84[1.45,2.32])和呕吐(优势比[95%可信区间]:1.65[0.81,3.35])的比例显著高于对照组。与其他肠道准备方案相比,番泻草方案在结肠镜检查前的肠道清洁可能是有效和安全的,具有更好的依从性和耐受性。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信