聚乙二醇联合利那氯肽与聚乙二醇单独用于结肠镜检查的疗效和安全性:一项分级评估的系统评价和荟萃分析。

IF 2.3 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Umar Akram, Eeman Ahmad, Shahzaib Ahmed, Zain Ali Nadeem, Muhammad Ahmed Raza, Eeshal Fatima, Syed Adeel Hassan, Ahtshamullah Chaudhry, Hareesha Rishab Bharadwaj, Muhammad Arslan Tariq, Faryal Altaf, Zaheer Qureshi
{"title":"聚乙二醇联合利那氯肽与聚乙二醇单独用于结肠镜检查的疗效和安全性:一项分级评估的系统评价和荟萃分析。","authors":"Umar Akram, Eeman Ahmad, Shahzaib Ahmed, Zain Ali Nadeem, Muhammad Ahmed Raza, Eeshal Fatima, Syed Adeel Hassan, Ahtshamullah Chaudhry, Hareesha Rishab Bharadwaj, Muhammad Arslan Tariq, Faryal Altaf, Zaheer Qureshi","doi":"10.5946/ce.2025.073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The effectiveness of colonoscopy largely depends on the quality of bowel preparation. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is commonly used but has certain limitations. This review evaluates whether combining PEG with linaclotide improves preparation efficacy and safety compared with PEG alone.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to October 2024. Only randomized controlled trials comparing PEG combined with linaclotide versus PEG alone and reporting adenoma detection rates (ADR) or polyp detection rates (PDR) were included. Mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of eight studies, including 3,071 participants, were included. Pooled analysis indicated that PEG combined with linaclotide was significantly associated with a higher ADR (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28), higher Boston bowel preparation scale score (MD, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.02-0.61), and greater willingness to repeat colonoscopy (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.08-1.24). Although PDR (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.89-1.24) was numerically higher in the intervention group, the difference was not statistically significant. Additionally, the intervention significantly reduced the incidence of nausea, vomiting, bloating, and abdominal pain.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PEG combined with linaclotide is a safe alternative to PEG alone, improving ADR, bowel preparation quality, and patient comfort.</p>","PeriodicalId":10351,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Endoscopy","volume":" ","pages":"670-683"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12489571/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and safety of polyethylene glycol in combination with linaclotide versus polyethylene glycol alone for colonoscopy: a grade-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Umar Akram, Eeman Ahmad, Shahzaib Ahmed, Zain Ali Nadeem, Muhammad Ahmed Raza, Eeshal Fatima, Syed Adeel Hassan, Ahtshamullah Chaudhry, Hareesha Rishab Bharadwaj, Muhammad Arslan Tariq, Faryal Altaf, Zaheer Qureshi\",\"doi\":\"10.5946/ce.2025.073\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The effectiveness of colonoscopy largely depends on the quality of bowel preparation. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is commonly used but has certain limitations. This review evaluates whether combining PEG with linaclotide improves preparation efficacy and safety compared with PEG alone.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to October 2024. Only randomized controlled trials comparing PEG combined with linaclotide versus PEG alone and reporting adenoma detection rates (ADR) or polyp detection rates (PDR) were included. Mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of eight studies, including 3,071 participants, were included. Pooled analysis indicated that PEG combined with linaclotide was significantly associated with a higher ADR (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28), higher Boston bowel preparation scale score (MD, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.02-0.61), and greater willingness to repeat colonoscopy (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.08-1.24). Although PDR (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.89-1.24) was numerically higher in the intervention group, the difference was not statistically significant. Additionally, the intervention significantly reduced the incidence of nausea, vomiting, bloating, and abdominal pain.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PEG combined with linaclotide is a safe alternative to PEG alone, improving ADR, bowel preparation quality, and patient comfort.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10351,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Endoscopy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"670-683\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12489571/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Endoscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2025.073\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2025.073","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的:结肠镜检查的效果很大程度上取决于肠道准备的质量。聚乙二醇(PEG)被广泛使用,但有一定的局限性。本综述评价与单独应用PEG相比,PEG与利那氯肽联用是否能提高制剂的疗效和安全性。方法:检索Medline、Embase和ClinicalTrials.gov,检索时间截止到2024年10月。仅纳入比较PEG联合利那洛肽与单独PEG并报告腺瘤检出率(ADR)或息肉检出率(PDR)的随机对照试验。报告了95%可信区间(ci)的平均差异(MDs)和风险比(rr)。结果:共纳入8项研究,包括3071名受试者。合并分析显示,PEG联合利那洛肽与较高的不良反应(RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28)、较高的波士顿肠道准备量表评分(MD, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.02-0.61)和较高的重复结肠镜检查意愿(RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.08-1.24)显著相关。虽然干预组PDR (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.89-1.24)在数值上高于干预组,但差异无统计学意义。此外,干预显著降低了恶心、呕吐、腹胀和腹痛的发生率。结论:聚乙二醇联合利那洛肽是单独使用聚乙二醇的安全选择,可改善不良反应、肠准备质量和患者舒适度。
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 polyethylene glycol in combination with linaclotide versus polyethylene glycol alone for colonoscopy: a grade-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: The effectiveness of colonoscopy largely depends on the quality of bowel preparation. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is commonly used but has certain limitations. This review evaluates whether combining PEG with linaclotide improves preparation efficacy and safety compared with PEG alone.

Methods: A search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to October 2024. Only randomized controlled trials comparing PEG combined with linaclotide versus PEG alone and reporting adenoma detection rates (ADR) or polyp detection rates (PDR) were included. Mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported.

Results: A total of eight studies, including 3,071 participants, were included. Pooled analysis indicated that PEG combined with linaclotide was significantly associated with a higher ADR (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28), higher Boston bowel preparation scale score (MD, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.02-0.61), and greater willingness to repeat colonoscopy (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.08-1.24). Although PDR (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.89-1.24) was numerically higher in the intervention group, the difference was not statistically significant. Additionally, the intervention significantly reduced the incidence of nausea, vomiting, bloating, and abdominal pain.

Conclusions: PEG combined with linaclotide is a safe alternative to PEG alone, improving ADR, bowel preparation quality, and patient comfort.

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
Clinical Endoscopy
Clinical Endoscopy GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.00%
发文量
95
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
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