Feedback

Advanced intestinal regulation improves bowel preparation quality in patients with constipation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Affiliation
Department of Gastroenterology ,Shaoxing People’s Hospital ,Shaoxing ,Zhejiang ,China
Ding, Liang;
Affiliation
Department of Infectious Diseases ,Shaoxing People’s Hospital ,Shaoxing ,Zhejiang ,China
Duan, JinNan;
Affiliation
Department of Gastroenterology ,Shaoxing People’s Hospital ,Shaoxing ,Zhejiang ,China
Yang, Tao;
Affiliation
Department of Gastroenterology ,Shaoxing People’s Hospital ,Shaoxing ,Zhejiang ,China
Jin, ChaoQiong;
Affiliation
Department of Gastroenterology ,Shaoxing People’s Hospital ,Shaoxing ,Zhejiang ,China
Luo, Jun;
Affiliation
Department of Gastroenterology ,Shaoxing People’s Hospital ,Shaoxing ,Zhejiang ,China
Ma, Ahuo

Background: Inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) has a critical influence on the colonoscopy procedure and is associated with significantly lower rates of detection of colorectal lesions. Constipation is an important risk factor of IBP, and some studies have attempted to address the bowel cleansing for constipated patients. However, there is still lack of consensus to guide the clinical work of bowel preparation (BP) for patients with constipation. Therefore, we aimed to perform a network meta-analysis to compare the overall efficacy of various regimens for BP in constipated patients. Methods: We performed a comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of science to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of bowel preparation regimens in constipated patients, update to January 2021. Two investigators independently evaluated articles and extracted data. The odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to combine dichotomous data of the primary outcome which was defined as adequate bowel preparation (ABP). Rank probability was used to exhibit the outcome of the network meta-analysis. Results: Eleven studies that included 1891 constipated patients were identified as suitable for inclusion. The proportion of ABP was associated with the administration of intensive regimen (OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.16–4.17, p = .02, I2 = 84%). Moreover, an intensive regimen had a significant efficacy and light heterogeneity when the same basic laxative program was used (OR 4.06, 95% CI 3.04–5.43, p < .0001, I2 = 0%). In the network meta-analysis, the protocol of a normal regimen + A (normal regimen plus advanced intestinal regulation) had a significant effect for bowel preparation compared with a normal regimen + IR (normal regimen plus irritating laxative regimen) (OR 5.21, 95% CI 1.18–24.55), H PEG (4L- polyethylene glycol) (OR 8.70, 95% CI 1.75–52.56), and normal regimen (NR) (OR 7.37, 95% CI 2.33–26.39). In the remaining protocols, no significant difference was observed in any comparison. No significant severe adverse events (AEs) associated with bowel preparation were reported in included studies. Conclusion: Intensive regimens could improve bowel cleansing quality for patients with constipation, and advanced intestinal regulation regimens may be superior to others.

Cite

Citation style:
Could not load citation form.

Access Statistic

Total:
Downloads:
Abtractviews:
Last 12 Month:
Downloads:
Abtractviews:

Rights

License Holder: Copyright © 2023 Ding, Duan, Yang, Jin, Luo and Ma.

Use and reproduction: