Beverage intake preference and bowel preparation laxative taste preference for colonoscopy

doi:10.4292/wjgpt.v6.i3.84

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 6, Issue 3

This Article

Peer-Review Report of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (11166)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Tables (1-2) series.

Item

Count

PDF

432

WORD

294

HTML

2391

Tables (1-2)

501

Sum=3618

Featured Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

701

Download

2797

Sum=3498

Publishing Process of This Article

Item

Count

Browse

1290

Download

2762

Sum=4052

Aug 6, 2015 (publication date) through Feb 24, 2026

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (1)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastrointestinal Pharmacology and Therapeutics

ISSN

2150-5349

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

- Full Article with Cover (PDF)
- Full Article (XML)

Observational Study

World J Gastrointest Pharmacol Ther. Aug 6, 2015; 6(3): 84-88
Published online Aug 6, 2015. doi: 10.4292/wjgpt.v6.i3.84

Beverage intake preference and bowel preparation laxative taste preference for colonoscopy

Adeyinka O Laiyemo, Clinton Burnside, Maryam A Laiyemo, John Kwagyan, Carla D Williams, Kolapo A Idowu, Hassan Ashktorab, Angesom Kibreab, Victor F Scott, Andrew K Sanderson

Adeyinka O Laiyemo, Hassan Ashktorab, Angesom Kibreab, Victor F Scott, Andrew K Sanderson, Department of Medicine, Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, DC 20060, United States

Clinton Burnside, Carla D Williams, Kolapo A Idowu, Howard University Cancer Center, Washington, DC 20060, United States

Maryam A Laiyemo, Department of Biological Sciences, College of Arts and Sciences, Howard University, Washington, DC 20060, United States

John Kwagyan, Georgetown-Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translations Science, Washington, DC 20060, United States

Author contributions: All authors contributed to this manuscript.

Supported by In part, the Bridge Funds and Pilot Study Awards Program of Howard University, No. U400043; by grant awards from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science, Nos. KL2TR000102-04 and UL1RT000101; from the National Institute for Diabetes, Digestive Diseases and Kidney, No. R21DK100875; and National Institutes of Health (to Dr. Laiyemo AO).

Institutional review board statement: The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Howard University, Washington DC (Reference = IRB-12-MED-17).

Informed consent statement: All participants gave written informed consent prior to participation.

Conflict-of-interest statement: None.

Data sharing statement: No.

Correspondence to: Adeyinka O Laiyemo, MD, MPH, Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Howard University College of Medicine, 2041 Georgia Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20060, United States. adeyinka.laiyemo@howard.edu

Telephone: +1-202-8657186 Fax: +1-202-8654607

Received: March 16, 2015
Peer-review started: March 18, 2015
First decision: April 10, 2015
Revised: May 26, 2015
Accepted: June 9, 2015
Article in press: June 11, 2015
Published online: August 6, 2015
Processing time: 145 Days and 8.8 Hours

Abstract

AIM: To examine whether non-alcoholic beverage intake preferences can guide polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based bowel laxative preparation selection for patients.

METHODS: We conducted eight public taste test sessions using commercially procured (A) unflavored PEG, (B) citrus flavored PEG and (C) PEG with ascorbate (Moviprep). We collected characteristics of volunteers including their beverage intake preferences. The volunteers tasted the laxatives in randomly assigned orders and ranked the laxatives as 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd based on their taste preferences. Our primary outcome is the number of 1^st place rankings for each preparation.

RESULTS: A total of 777 volunteers completed the study. Unflavored PEG was ranked as 1^st by 70 (9.0%), flavored PEG by 534 (68.7%) and PEG with ascorbate by 173 (22.3%) volunteers. Demographic, lifestyle characteristics and beverage intake patterns for coffee, tea, and carbonated drinks did not predict PEG-based laxative preference.

CONCLUSION: Beverage intake pattern was not a useful guide for PEG-based laxative preference. It is important to develop more tolerable and affordable bowel preparation laxatives for colonoscopy. Also, patients should taste their PEG solution with and without flavoring before flavoring the entire gallon as this may give them more opportunity to pick a pattern that may be more tolerable.

Keywords: Bowel preparation; Laxatives; Colonoscopy; Taste tests; Colon cancer; Screening

Core tip: There is a need to improve patients’ experience with bowel preparation process in order to optimize both colonoscopy uptake. Polyethelene glycol (PEG) is the most widely used laxative but many patients do not readily tolerate it because of its taste. We evaluated whether beverage intake preference pattern can be a useful guide for predicting tolerability of bowel preparation laxative in multiple public taste tests. Our study suggested that no demographic or lifestyle factors predicted bowel preparation taste preference for PEG-based preparations. We recommend that patients should taste PEG formulation before flavoring it to assist them in choosing a more tolerable pattern of ingestion.