口服硫酸溶液与聚乙二醇结肠镜检查的疗效和安全性:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析

IF 1.4 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
DEN open Pub Date : 2025-04-16 DOI:10.1002/deo2.70113
Umar Akram, Shahzaib Ahmed, Eeshal Fatima, Eeman Ahmad, Hamza Ashraf, Syed Adeel Hassan, Zaheer Qureshi, Faryal Altaf, Daniel Buckles, Javed Iqbal, Khabab Abbasher Hussien Mohamed Ahmed
{"title":"口服硫酸溶液与聚乙二醇结肠镜检查的疗效和安全性:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Umar Akram,&nbsp;Shahzaib Ahmed,&nbsp;Eeshal Fatima,&nbsp;Eeman Ahmad,&nbsp;Hamza Ashraf,&nbsp;Syed Adeel Hassan,&nbsp;Zaheer Qureshi,&nbsp;Faryal Altaf,&nbsp;Daniel Buckles,&nbsp;Javed Iqbal,&nbsp;Khabab Abbasher Hussien Mohamed Ahmed","doi":"10.1002/deo2.70113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Colonoscopy is the gold standard for early detection and monitoring of colorectal cancer. Procedural effectiveness is dependent on optimal bowel preparation. Traditional polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions are difficult to tolerate, whereas newer low-volume alternatives, including PEG with ascorbic acid and oral sulfate solutions (OSS), offer improved efficacy and tolerability. The meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OSS compared to PEG for bowel preparation in colonoscopy.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception until June 2024. Only randomized controlled trials comparing OSS with PEG were included. Data was analyzed using R version 4.4.0 using a random effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Twenty-one studies with 6346 participants met the inclusion criteria. OSS significantly improved adenoma detection (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04–1.22; <i>p</i>-value &lt;0.01; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) and polyp detection rates (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.06–1.26; <i>p</i>-value &lt;0.01; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%), and had a higher Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score (MD, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13–0.50; <i>p</i>-value &lt;0.01; I<sup>2</sup> = 81%). PEG was associated with more sleep disturbances (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25–0.82; <i>p</i>-value = 0.03; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). However, other adverse effects were similar between both solutions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>OSS demonstrated superior adenoma and polyp detection rates. When compared to PEG, patients utilizing OSS achieved higher BBPS scores. Data gleaned support enhanced cleansing efficacy and safety of OSS as a bowel preparation regimen.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":93973,"journal":{"name":"DEN open","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/deo2.70113","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and safety of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials\",\"authors\":\"Umar Akram,&nbsp;Shahzaib Ahmed,&nbsp;Eeshal Fatima,&nbsp;Eeman Ahmad,&nbsp;Hamza Ashraf,&nbsp;Syed Adeel Hassan,&nbsp;Zaheer Qureshi,&nbsp;Faryal Altaf,&nbsp;Daniel Buckles,&nbsp;Javed Iqbal,&nbsp;Khabab Abbasher Hussien Mohamed Ahmed\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/deo2.70113\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Colonoscopy is the gold standard for early detection and monitoring of colorectal cancer. Procedural effectiveness is dependent on optimal bowel preparation. Traditional polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions are difficult to tolerate, whereas newer low-volume alternatives, including PEG with ascorbic acid and oral sulfate solutions (OSS), offer improved efficacy and tolerability. The meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OSS compared to PEG for bowel preparation in colonoscopy.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception until June 2024. Only randomized controlled trials comparing OSS with PEG were included. Data was analyzed using R version 4.4.0 using a random effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Twenty-one studies with 6346 participants met the inclusion criteria. OSS significantly improved adenoma detection (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04–1.22; <i>p</i>-value &lt;0.01; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) and polyp detection rates (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.06–1.26; <i>p</i>-value &lt;0.01; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%), and had a higher Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score (MD, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13–0.50; <i>p</i>-value &lt;0.01; I<sup>2</sup> = 81%). PEG was associated with more sleep disturbances (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25–0.82; <i>p</i>-value = 0.03; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). However, other adverse effects were similar between both solutions.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>OSS demonstrated superior adenoma and polyp detection rates. When compared to PEG, patients utilizing OSS achieved higher BBPS scores. Data gleaned support enhanced cleansing efficacy and safety of OSS as a bowel preparation regimen.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93973,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"DEN open\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/deo2.70113\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"DEN open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/deo2.70113\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DEN open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/deo2.70113","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

结肠镜检查是早期发现和监测结直肠癌的金标准。手术效果取决于最佳的肠道准备。传统的聚乙二醇(PEG)溶液很难耐受,而新的小容量替代品,包括PEG与抗坏血酸和口服硫酸溶液(OSS),提供了更好的疗效和耐受性。进行荟萃分析以评估OSS与PEG在结肠镜检查中用于肠道准备的有效性和安全性。方法通过检索PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL和clinicaltrials.gov从成立到2024年6月的研究进行鉴定。仅纳入比较OSS与PEG的随机对照试验。数据分析采用R 4.4.0版本,采用随机效应模型计算风险比(RRs)和平均差异(MDs), 95%置信区间(ci)。结果21项研究6346名受试者符合纳入标准。OSS显著提高腺瘤检出率(RR, 1.13;95% ci, 1.04-1.22;假定值& lt; 0.01;I2 = 0%)和息肉检出率(RR, 1.16;95% ci, 1.06-1.26;假定值& lt; 0.01;I2 = 0%),且波士顿肠道准备量表(BBPS)评分较高(MD, 0.31;95% ci, 0.13-0.50;假定值& lt; 0.01;I2 = 81%)。PEG与更多的睡眠障碍相关(RR, 0.45;95% ci, 0.25-0.82;p值= 0.03;I2 = 0%)。然而,两种解决方案之间的其他副作用相似。结论OSS具有较高的腺瘤和息肉检出率。与PEG相比,使用OSS的患者获得更高的BBPS评分。收集到的数据支持OSS作为一种肠道准备方案提高了清洁功效和安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Efficacy and safety of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Efficacy and safety of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for early detection and monitoring of colorectal cancer. Procedural effectiveness is dependent on optimal bowel preparation. Traditional polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions are difficult to tolerate, whereas newer low-volume alternatives, including PEG with ascorbic acid and oral sulfate solutions (OSS), offer improved efficacy and tolerability. The meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OSS compared to PEG for bowel preparation in colonoscopy.

Methods

Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception until June 2024. Only randomized controlled trials comparing OSS with PEG were included. Data was analyzed using R version 4.4.0 using a random effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Twenty-one studies with 6346 participants met the inclusion criteria. OSS significantly improved adenoma detection (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04–1.22; p-value <0.01; I2 = 0%) and polyp detection rates (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.06–1.26; p-value <0.01; I2 = 0%), and had a higher Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score (MD, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13–0.50; p-value <0.01; I2 = 81%). PEG was associated with more sleep disturbances (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25–0.82; p-value = 0.03; I2 = 0%). However, other adverse effects were similar between both solutions.

Conclusion

OSS demonstrated superior adenoma and polyp detection rates. When compared to PEG, patients utilizing OSS achieved higher BBPS scores. Data gleaned support enhanced cleansing efficacy and safety of OSS as a bowel preparation regimen.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
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