Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the United States. Early detection through colonoscopy significantly improves survival rates. Detecting colon polyps depends on the quality of bowel preparation. However, inadequate bowel preparation remains a significant issue in clinical practice. Efforts to address this challenge have led to the development of bowel preparation regimens emphasizing efficacy, tolerability, and safety. Bowel preparation options can be categorized by their osmotic and volume properties. Isosmotic solutions based on polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solutions (PEG-ELS) are available in both low-volume PEG-ELS with ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) (e.g., MoviPrep, PLENVU) and high-volume formulations (e.g., GoLYTELY, CoLyte), as well as sulfate-free high-volume PEG-ELS formulations (SF-PEG-ELS). Hyperosmotic solutions include oral sulfate solution (OSS) (e.g., SUPREP), sodium phosphate tablets (NaP) (e.g., OsmoPrep), oral sulfate tablets (OST) (e.g., SUTAB), flavored PEG with sulfate salts (FPSS) (e.g., SUFLAVE), and magnesium citrate. Hypoosmotic solutions consist of PEG-sports drink (PEG-SD). In addition, combination solutions are available, such as sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (SPMC) with laxatives (e.g., CLENPIQ), and OSS with SF-PEG-ELS (Suclear). Each regimen differs in terms of cost, volume, taste, contraindications, and potential adverse effects. Therefore, clinicians must carefully evaluate each patient to determine the most suitable regimen for their patients.

This study aimed to evaluate the association between cholecystectomy and colonic bubble formation during colonoscopy, METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted at Staten Island University Hospital. Researchers reviewed 348 colonoscopy reports, comparing patients with (n = 56) and without (n = 292) a history of cholecystectomy. Colonic bubble formation was assessed using a 0-3 scale (0 = no bubbles, 3 = severe bubbles). Secondary endpoints included polyp and adenoma detection, withdrawal and procedure times, bowel preparation quality, and repeat procedures. Statistical analysis included t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and χ2 tests.

Patients with prior cholecystectomy had significantly higher incidence of severe bubble formation (score 3; 28.6% vs. 12%, p = 0.001), longer withdrawal times (18 ± 8 vs. 15 ± 5 min, p = 0.024), and increased need for repeat colonoscopies (10.7% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.001). No significant differences were found in adenoma detection, polyp detection, or bowel preparation quality between the two groups.

Cholecystectomy is associated with increased colonic bubble formation during colonoscopy, leading to longer withdrawal times and higher rates of repeat procedures. While this study did not find a difference in adenoma detection rates, the impaired visualization caused by bubbles may necessitate tailored bowel preparation strategies for patients with a history of cholecystectomy to optimize colonoscopy effectiveness.

Endoscopic examinations can reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) burden through early detection and removal of precancerous lesions; however, after initial endoscopy, some patients do not attend subsequent examinations.

To investigate the impact of patient experience of endoscopic screening on attendance at future examinations and distal CRC incidence.

In a cohort study including 40,141 participants who received flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening in the UK FS Screening Trial, median follow-up was 16.8 years. We examined family history of CRC, bowel preparation quality, segment of bowel reached, and responses to patient-reported post-examination questionnaires. We estimated multivariable odds ratios (OR) for attendance at future examinations by logistic regression and hazard ratios (HR) for associations between patient experience at FS and distal CRC incidence.

Of those recommended a future endoscopy, 7.1% did not attend repeat FS, 3.4% did not attend colonoscopy, 18.3% did not attend surveillance, and 0.5% developed distal CRC. Symptoms of faintness/dizziness (OR = 5.10 95%CI 1.49-17.42) were associated with non-attendance at repeat FS. Non-attendance at surveillance was associated with whether participants felt they had made the right decision to take the tests; that taking the tests was tempting fate; that they needed the tests; or that they would rather have let nature take its course. A FS more painful than expected (HR = 0.57 95%CI 0.37-0.88) was inversely associated with distal CRC incidence.

We identified aspects of patient experience at endoscopy that could be used to improve attendance at future endoscopic examinations, which in turn could reduce CRC incidence.

ISRCTN28352761. Trial registration date: April 2000.

Large learning models (LLMs) such as GPT are advanced artificial intelligence (AI) models. Originally developed for natural language processing, they have been adapted for multi-modal tasks with vision-language input. One clinically relevant task is scoring the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). While traditional AI techniques use large amounts of data for training, we hypothesise that vision-language LLM can perform this task with fewer examples.

We used the GPT4V vision-language LLM developed by OpenAI, via the OpenAI application programming interface. A standardised prompt instructed the model to grade BBPS with contextual references extracted from the original paper describing the BBPS by Lai et al (GIE 2009). Performance was tested on the HyperKvasir dataset, an open dataset for automated BBPS grading.

Of 1794 images, GPT4V returned valid results for 1772 (98%). It had an accuracy of 0.84 for two-class classification (BBPS 0-1 vs 2-3) and 0.74 for four-class classification (BBPS 0, 1, 2, 3). Macro-averaged F1 scores were 0.81 and 0.63, respectively. Qualitatively, most errors arose from misclassification of BBPS 1 as 2. These results compare favourably with current methods using large amounts of training data, which achieve an accuracy in the range of 0.8-0.9.

This study provides proof-of-concept that a vision-language LLM is able to perform BBPS classification accurately, without large training datasets. This represents a paradigm shift in AI classification methods in medicine, where many diseases lack sufficient data to train traditional AI models. An LLM with appropriate examples may be used in such cases.

The quality of a colonoscopy is heavily reliant on the effectiveness of bowel cleansing. Various cleansing solutions are currently available, but their comparative efficacy remains uncertain. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to compare the performance of different bowel preparations for colonoscopy.

MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of different bowel preparations. The primary outcome was cleansing success (CS), and the secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR).

On network meta-analysis for CS (22 RCTs, 7179 patients, 14 bowel preparations), 2 L PEG + simethicone (RR = 1.25 [95 %CI = 1.13-1.37]), 2 L PEG + lactulose (RR = 1.22 [95 %CI = 1.10-1.38]) and 1 L PEG + ascorbate (ASC) (RR = 1.03 [95 %CI = 1.01-1.06]) were significantly superior to 2 L PEG + ASC. Overall, 2 L PEG + lactulose resulted as the best product (SUCRA 0.94), followed by 2 L PEG + simethicone (SUCRA 0.93). On network meta-analysis for ADR (17 RCTs, 6639 patients, 11 bowel preparations), only 2 L PEG + simethicone (RR = 1.60 [95 %CI = 1.05-2.43]) resulted significantly superior to 2 L PEG + ASC.

2 L PEG + simethicone, 2 L PEG + lactulose, and 1 L PEG + ASC seemed to provide high rates of CS, albeit only 2 L PEG + simethicone was associated with significantly higher ADR. Consequently, these products should be preferred for bowel preparation of colonoscopy. Further randomized studies with adequate sample sizes are needed for a more accurate comparison of these products on ADR.

Colonoscopies are vital for initial screening, follow-ups, surveillance of neoplasia, and assessing symptoms such as rectal bleeding. Successful colonoscopies require thorough colon preparation, but up to 25% fail due to poor preparation. This can lead to longer procedures, repeat colonoscopies, inconvenience, poorer health outcomes, and higher costs. eHealth tools can enhance bowel preparation and potentially reduce the need for repeat procedures.

This usability study aimed to identify strengths and weaknesses in a prototype companion app for colonoscopy examinations. The objective was to obtain in-depth insights into the app's usability, ease of use, and content comprehension, with the aim of refining the tool to effectively fulfill its intended purpose, guided by feedback from potential users.

From February to August 2024, we conducted a qualitative study using the think-aloud procedure. Each session involved 6 tasks and a semistructured interview to delve deeper into participants' task experiences. All think-aloud sessions and interviews were recorded. Quantitative usability questions were analyzed using Microsoft Excel, while qualitative data underwent coding and analysis based on thematic analysis principles.

In total, 17 individuals, all smartphone users, participated in this study. Participants were recruited from 1 hospital, 1 private clinic, and 1 patient organization in Switzerland. The study found that participants rated the app's usability metrics positively, with an overall mean rating of ease of use at 4.29 (SD 0.59), usefulness at 4.53 (SD 0.72), and comprehensibility at 4.29 (SD 0.92). For the individual features, the mean ratings for ease of use were between 4 and 4.65, usefulness ranged from 4.35 to 4.82, and comprehensibility received ratings between 4.29 and 4.53, all measured on a 5-point scale, where 1 represented low agreement and 5 indicated high agreement. Additionally, 100% of participants indicated they will or may use the app if they require a colonoscopy examination. Participants highlighted the need for reminders and alerts in the week leading up to the colonoscopy, along with tailored content, simplified language, and visual aids.

The app prototype demonstrated favorable results with the majority of participants, and the testing process enabled the prompt identification and resolution of usability issues. The next phase will prioritize and assess potential improvements based on urgency and feasibility to guide a focused development plan. Usability testing highlighted features such as push notifications and personalized content as top priorities for participants, making them key areas for immediate attention. Moving forward, the app has the potential to function effectively as a companion app for colonoscopy examinations. To achieve this, further studies with a larger sample in real-world settings will be crucial.

Adequate bowel preparation is indispensable for high-quality colonoscopy. We have developed an ultralow-volume (500 mL) polyethylene glycol (PEG) combined with other laxatives (sennoside, sodium picosulfate, and lactulose) and applied this regimen clinically to all patients with colonoscopy for 3 decades. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of this ultralow-volume bowel preparation regimen.

This single-center, retrospective study analyzed data from consecutive outpatients who underwent colonoscopy between January 2022 and December 2022. All the patients took sennoside (24 mg) two nights before, sodium picosulfate (75 mg) one night before, and 500 mL of PEG with lactulose (58.5 g) on the day of examination. Cleaning efficacy was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Adequate bowel preparation was defined as a total BBPS score ≥6, with all colon segments scoring ≥2.

Out of 862 patients with colonoscopy, 773 were eligible for this study, and the median age was 66 years. The adequate bowel preparation rate was 91.8% (710/773). Notably, the BBPS full score "9" was observed in 50.5% (390/773). The median cecal intubation time and examination time were 8 and 20 min, respectively. Only 3 patients vomited as a side effect. In the multivariate analysis, age ≥70 years, diabetes mellitus, and diverticula were significantly independent risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation.

Our established ultralow-volume (500 mL) PEG is safe and useful as a bowel preparation method.

There is robust evidence to indicate a strong correlation between the bowel preparation status and adenoma detection rate (ADR), which directly impacts the incidence and mortality rate of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Therefore, improving bowel preparation has been of increasing interest. In Japan, commercially available bowel preparation agents include polyethylene glycol, oral sodium sulfate, sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate, magnesium citrate, and oral sodium phosphate; each has its own strengths and limitations. The timing of administration can also influence the efficacy of bowel preparation and patient tolerability. Furthermore, meta-analyses have suggested predictive factors for inadequate bowel preparation. A detailed understanding of these factors could contribute to reducing the need for repeat colonoscopy within 1 year, as recommended for patients with inadequate bowel preparation. Recent advancements, such as oral sulfate tablets, present promising alternatives with higher patient satisfaction and ADRs than traditional methods. Achieving optimal bowel preparation requires enhanced instructions, individualized regimens, and a comprehensive understanding of patient backgrounds and the characteristics of various bowel preparation agents. This article provides a concise overview of the current status and advancements in bowel preparation for enhancing the quality and safety of colonoscopy.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy has been widely used in the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal diseases. A great many of studies on gastrointestinal endoscopy have been done.

To analyze the characteristics of top 100 cited articles on gastrointestinal endoscopy.

A bibliometric analysis was conducted. The publications and their features were extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection, Science Citation Index-Expanded database. Excel, Web of Science database and SPSS software were used to perform the statistical description and analysis. VOSviewer software and MapChart were responsible for the visualizations.

The top 100 cited articles were published between 1976 and 2022. The guidelines (52%) and clinical trials (37%) are the main article types, and average publication year of the guidelines is much later than that of the clinical trials (2015 vs 1998). Among the clinical trials, diagnostic study (27.0%), cohort study (21.6%), case series (13.5%) and cross-sectional study (10.8%) account for a large proportion. Average citations of different study types and designs of the enrolled studies are of no significant differences. Most of the 100 articles were published by European authors and recorded by the endoscopic journals (65%). Top journals in medicine, such as the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA, also reported studies in this field. The hot spots of involved diseases include neoplasm or cancer-related diseases, inflammatory diseases, obstructive diseases, gastrointestinal hemorrhage and ulcer. Endoscopic surgery, endoscopic therapy and stent placement are frequently studied.

Our research contributes to delineating the field and identifying the characteristics of the most highly cited articles. It is noteworthy that there is a significantly smaller number of clinical trials included compared to guidelines, indicating potential areas for future high-quality clinical trials.

Colonoscopy is a diagnostic and therapeutic procedure that reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality but requires adequate bowel cleansing for high-quality examination. Past studies have suggested cirrhosis as a risk factor for worse bowel preparation.

We carried out a match-controlled retrospective study evaluating patients with and without cirrhosis who underwent outpatient screening colonoscopies to assess the effect of cirrhosis and portal hypertension complications on preparation quality and endoscopic measures. We also did a subgroup analysis excluding patients with obesity.

We examined 1464 patients with cirrhosis and matched controls. Cirrhotic patients had lower mean Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores and slower cecal intubation times. We found a single point increase in the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, as well as ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, and variceal hemorrhage were all associated with a longer cecal intubation time. Subgroup analysis excluding patients with obesity again found a significantly lower BBPS score and longer cecal intubation time while also finding a 24% drop in polyp detection.

Patients with cirrhosis have worse BBPS scores and longer cecal intubation times. Nonobese cirrhotic patients additionally have a lower polyp detection rate. Portal hypertension complications were associated with worsened preparation quality and longer cecal intubation times. Each incremental increase in MELD score lengthened cecal intubation time. These findings support a more aggressive bowel preparation strategy for patients with cirrhosis, especially patients with severe disease or portal hypertension complications.

The adenoma detection rate (ADR), recognized as a surrogate marker for colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality reduction, is closely linked to the efficacy of bowel cleansing. However, there is a dearth of evidence examining the impact on ADR when using 2 distinct very-low-dose bowel cleansing products. This study sought to compare ADR in an immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT)-based organized screening program by using 1 L of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (1L-PEGA) versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (SPMC), both administered in a split-dose regimen.

We conducted a comparative, parallel, randomized, noninferiority, and low-intervention clinical trial targeting individuals from a population CRC screening program aged 50 to 69 years with a positive iFOBT result scheduled for a workup colonoscopy in the morning. Participants were randomized to either 1L-PEGA or SPMC for bowel cleansing. The main outcome was ADR, whereas secondary outcomes were bowel preparation quality, safety, tolerability, and satisfaction.

A total of 1002 subjects, 501 were included in each group. There were no differences between groups with respect to pooled ADR (SPMC, 56.5% [95% CI, 52.1-60.8]; 1L-PEGA, 53.7% [95% CI, 49.3-58.0]; relative risk, .95 [95% CI, .85-1.06]); therefore, SPMC demonstrated noninferiority in ADR compared with 1L-PEGA (difference, 2.8%; 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit, -3.4). In addition, there were no significant differences in mean lesions regardless of size and location between arms. Bowel preparation favored 1L-PEGA (96.2% vs 89.2%, P < .001), whereas SPMC exhibited significantly higher safety and tolerability, as shown by fewer nonserious treatment-emergent adverse events.

SPMC emerged as a noninferior laxative compared with 1L-PEGA concerning ADR. Despite the superior bowel preparation quality associated with 1L-PEGA, the safety, tolerability, and overall satisfaction of participants were higher with SPMC. (Clinical trial registration number: EudraCT: 2019-003186-18.).

Colonoscopy is widely used as a diagnostic and preventive procedure for colorectal diseases. The most recent guidelines advocate the use of a low-residue diet (LRD) for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. LRD duration varies considerably, with recommended 1-day and multiple-day regimens in clinical practice.

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched multiple databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and analyzed the outcomes using a fixed-effects model.

Six RCTs with 2,469 subjects were included in this study. The rates of adequate bowel preparation for 1-day and >1-day were 87.2% and 87.1%, respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed between the 1-day and >1-day LRD in adequate bowel preparation (odds ratio [OR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.41; p=0.84; I2=0%), polyp detection rate (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76-1.09; p=0.29; I2=16%), adenoma detection rate (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71-1.08; p=0.21; I2=0%), and withdrawal time (mean difference, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.25 to 0.24; p=0.97; I2=63%).

The efficacy of 1-day and multiple-day LRD is comparable in achieving satisfactory bowel preparation, highlighting their similar impact on the detection of polyps and adenomas during colonoscopy.

Background and Aims: A low-volume (1 L) polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (PEG-A) solution and an oral sodium sulfate tablet (OST) formulation are recently introduced agents for colonoscopy bowel preparation. This study investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of 1 L PEG-A vs. OST. Methods: This single-center, prospective, randomized, endoscopist-blinded study randomly assigned patients into 2 groups: 1 L PEG-A (group A); and OST (group B). Efficacy of bowel preparation was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Tolerability and safety were investigated with a standardized questionnaire. Results: A total of 174 patients were included in the final analysis (group A, n = 92; group B, n = 82). Successful bowel preparation was achieved in 91.3% and 95.1% of patients in groups A and B, respectively (p = 0.324). Overall mean satisfaction with bowel preparation was greater among those in group B vs. those in group A (8.2 ± 1.7 vs. 6.8 ± 2.0, respectively; p < 0.001). Although abdominal distension was less common in group A than group B (3/92 [3.3%] vs. 9/82 [11.0%], respectively; p = 0.045), overall adverse events developed similarly in both groups (27/92 [29.3%] vs. 21/82 [25.6%], p = 0.583). In subgroup analysis of older patients (≥65 years of age), efficacy, overall satisfaction, and safety profiles were not different between groups A and B. Conclusions: Both 1 L PEG-A and OST demonstrated efficacy, tolerability, and safety for colonoscopy bowel preparation. OST was slightly better tolerated, whereas 1 L PEG-A resulted in less abdominal distension. Both agents were effective and safe in older patients.

Colonoscopy (CS) is an important screening method for the early detection and removal of precancerous lesions. The stool state during bowel preparation (BP) should be properly evaluated to perform CS with sufficient quality. This study aimed to develop a smartphone application (app) with an artificial intelligence (AI) model for stool state evaluation during BP and to investigate whether the use of the app could maintain an adequate quality of CS.

First, stool images were collected in our hospital to develop the AI model and were categorized into grade 1 (solid or muddy stools), grade 2 (cloudy watery stools), and grade 3 (clear watery stools). The AI model for stool state evaluation (grades 1-3) was constructed and internally verified using the cross-validation method. Second, a prospective study was conducted on the quality of CS using the app in our hospital. The primary end-point was the proportion of patients who achieved Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) ≥6 among those who successfully used the app.

The AI model showed mean accuracy rates of 90.2%, 65.0%, and 89.3 for grades 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The prospective study enrolled 106 patients and revealed that 99.0% (95% confidence interval 95.3-99.9%) of patients achieved a BBPS ≥6.

The proportion of patients with BBPS ≥6 during CS using the developed app exceeded the set expected value. This app could contribute to the performance of high-quality CS in clinical practice.

Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is considered the gold standard regimen for bowel preparation; however, due to the necessity of a large volume, patient tolerance is impaired. Therefore, lactulose is a novel alternative for colonoscopy preparation. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of lactulose-based bowel preparations in comparison with PEG for colonoscopy.

This is a prospective, non-blinded, comparative study. Outpatients were randomly divided into two groups: group 1 (111 patients), PEG; and group 2 (111 patients), lactulose. The following clinical outcomes were assessed in each group: degree of bowel clearance using the Boston bowel preparation score, colorectal polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, tolerability, and side effects.

The rate of inadequate bowel preparation was 8.1% and 1.8% for the PEG and lactulose groups, respectively (p=0.030). The Boston bowel preparation score for the entire colon was 7.34±1.17 and 8.36±1.09 for the PEG and lactulose groups, respectively (p<0.001). The satisfactory overall experience rates were 27.9% and 62.2% for the PEG and lactulose groups, respectively (p<0.001).

The novel bowel preparation with oral lactulose was superior to that with PEG in terms of colon cleansing, adenoma detection rate, tolerance, and patient experience.

large clinical trials and small real-world studies show that a 1-L polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid solution (1-L PEG-ASC) is an effective and safe bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Here, the effectiveness and safety of 1-L PEG-ASC was evaluated in a large cohort of patients in routine clinical practice in Spain.

a sub-analysis was performed in an observational, multicenter, retrospective study assessing the effectiveness and safety of 1-L PEG-ASC in adult patients undergoing a colonoscopy at ten centers in Spain. Cleansing quality was assessed with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, scores ≥ 6 with all segmental scores ≥ 2 were considered as adequate colon cleansing, and high-quality was considered as cleansing ≥ 8 or = 3 in the right colon. Polyp and adenoma detection rates, and adverse events were also assessed.

data were collected from 7,160 patients; 48.3 % were males, mean age was 58.0 and 33.6 % were ≥ 65 years old. Adequate overall bowel cleansing was achieved in 95.6 % of patients (95 % CI: 95.1-96.0 %), high quality cleansing in 74.4 % (95 % CI: 73.4-75.4 %) and high-quality right colon cleansing in 66.0 % (95 % CI: 64.9-67.1). The adequate overall cleansing rate was 97.0 % with a split-dose and 94.0 % with same-day regimen (p < 0.0001), and high-quality right colon cleansing was 69.0 % and 62.5 % (p < 0.0001), respectively. Colonoscopy was completed in 97.2 % of cases. A multivariate regression analysis revealed that an overnight split-dose regimen and age < 65 years were independent predictors of adequate bowel cleansing of the overall colon, age < 65 years and female gender were independent predictors of high quality (HQ) cleansing of the overall colon, and the three covariates were independent predictors of HQ cleansing of the right colon. At least one adverse event was experienced by 3.3 % of participants, with nausea (1.5 %) and vomiting (1.2 %) being the most frequent.

this sub-analysis confirmed 1-L PEG-ASC to be an effective and safe bowel cleansing preparation in a real world setting in Spain.

Adequate bowel preparation is paramount for a high-quality screening colonoscopy. Despite the importance of adequate bowel preparation, there is a lack of large studies that associated the degree of bowel preparation with long-term colorectal cancer outcomes in screening patients.

In a large population-based screening program database in Austria, quality of bowel preparation was estimated according to the Aronchick Scale by the endoscopist (excellent, good, fair, poor, and inadequate bowel preparation). We used logistic regression to assess the influence of bowel preparation on the detection of different polyp types and the interphysician variation in bowel preparation scoring. Time-to-event analyses were performed to investigate the association of bowel preparation with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) death.

A total of 335,466 colonoscopies between January 2012 and follow-up until December 2022 were eligible for the analyses. As compared with excellent bowel preparation, adenoma detection was not significantly lower for good bowel preparation (odds ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9971-1.0329, P = 0.1023); however, adenoma detection was significantly lower in fair bowel preparation (odds ratio 0.97, 95% CI 0.9408-0.9939, P = 0.0166). Individuals who had fair or lower bowel preparation at screening colonoscopy had significantly higher hazards for PCCRC death (hazard ratio for fair bowel preparation 2.56, 95% CI 1.67-3.94, P < 0.001).

Fair bowel preparation on the Aronchick Scale was not only associated with a lower adenoma detection probability but also with increased risk of PCCRC death. Efforts should be made to increase bowel cleansing above fair scores.

Long-time follow-up of sigmoidoscopy screening trials has shown reduced incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC), but inadequate bowel cleansing may hamper efficacy. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of bowel cleansing quality in sigmoidoscopy screening.

Individuals 50 to 74 years old who had a screening sigmoidoscopy in a population-based Norwegian, randomized trial between 2012 and 2019, were included in this cross-sectional study. The bowel cleansing quality was categorised as excellent, good, partly poor, or poor. The effect of bowel cleansing quality on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and referral to colonoscopy was evaluated by fitting multivariable logistic regression models.

35,710 individuals were included. The bowel cleansing at sigmoidoscopy was excellent in 20,934 (58.6%) individuals, good in 6580 (18.4%), partly poor in 7097 (19.9%) and poor in 1099 (3.1%). The corresponding ADRs were 17.0%, 16.6%, 14.5%, and 13.0%. Compared to participants with excellent bowel cleansing, those with poor bowel cleansing had an odds ratio for adenoma detection of 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.55-0.79). We found substantial differences in the assessment of bowel cleansing quality among endoscopists.

Inadequate bowel cleansing reduces the efficacy of sigmoidoscopy screening, by lowering ADR. A validated rating scale and improved bowel preparation are needed to make sigmoidoscopy an appropriate screening method.

Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550).

Adequate bowel preparation is essential for successful colonoscopy and polypectomy procedures. However, a significant proportion of patients still exhibit suboptimal bowel preparation, ranging from 18% to 35%. The effectiveness of bowel preparation agents can be hampered by volume and taste, adversely affecting patient compliance and tolerance. Therefore, exploring strategies to minimise laxative volume and improve patient tolerance and adherence is imperative to ensure optimal bowel preparation quality.

This study is a two-arm, single-blinded, parallel-group randomised controlled trial designed to compare the efficacy of 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) combined with linaclotide with 4 L PEG in bowel cleansing. A total of 422 participants will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention group (2 L PEG combined with 580 µg linaclotide) or the control group (4 L PEG). The primary outcome measure is bowel cleansing efficacy, which is assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Secondary outcomes include evaluating the tolerability and safety of the bowel preparation regimens, bowel diary assessments, postpolypectomy complications (such as bleeding and perforation) and the size and number of removed polyps.

The study has received approval from the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine. The findings of this trial will serve as a valuable resource for clinicians and patients undergoing colonoscopy polypectomy by guiding the selection of appropriate bowel preparation regimens. Study findings will be disseminated to participants, presented at professional society meetings, and published in peer-reviewed journals. This trial was registered on the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry with registration number ChiCTR2300075410.

Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is characterized by infrequent bowel movements and hard stools lasting for at least three months or longer. This disease affects 8-12% of the US population and 10-17% of the world population. Treatment and management involve identifying the primary cause, changing dietary habits, and adequate physical activity. Linaclotide is a guanylate cyclase-agonist acting locally in the luminal surface of the intestinal enterocyte leading to a signal transduction cascade, activation of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR), thus increasing secretion of chloride and bicarbonate into the intestinal lumen with eventual increased intestinal fluid and faster transit time.

We reviewed multiple studies and did a thorough literature review on CIC including its pathophysiology. Through this literature review, we were able to discuss and give the context and rationale for drug regimens indicated for CIC.

The era we live in right now is akin to nutrient-rich and fertilized soil as knowledge and resources are abundant. The opportunities and potential are endless. Constipation being more extensively studied, our understanding of medications and diseases broadens, leading to novel medications being discovered. Linaclotide is a pioneer in this aspect and can pave the way for future generations.

The effectiveness of colonoscopy is limited by the adequacy of bowel preparation. Nurses are essential in providing bowel cleansing agents and instructions for hospitalized patients before colonoscopy. This study aims to assess and improve the knowledge of nurses on bowel preparation for inpatient colonoscopy. Participants were asked to complete the survey before and after completing an educational module. The module and survey questions were placed in the NetLearning environment of the hospital intranet. A minimum post-test score of 80% was required to pass the course. A total of 1,107 nurses participated in the survey. Overall, the average score improved from 87% to 93% after the module (p < .0495). Knowledge of the different ways of consuming bowel cleansing agents improved from 54.3% to 83.6% (p = .0001). Only 56.2% of nurses knew how to carry out a split-dose bowel preparation regimen, which increased to 80.1% after the educational module (p = .0001). Nurses' knowledge about the different ways of consuming bowel cleansing agents before colonoscopy and the split-dose regimen is inadequate. A simple online educational module significantly improved the knowledge of nurses on bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Endocuff Vision (Olympus Europe, Hamburg, Germany) has been designed to enhance mucosal visualization, thereby improving detection of (pre-)malignant colorectal lesions. This multicenter, international, back-to-back, randomized colonoscopy trial compared the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenoma miss rate (AMR) between Endocuff Vision-assisted colonoscopy (EVC) and conventional colonoscopy (CC).

Patients aged 40 to 75 years referred for non-immunochemical fecal occult blood test-based screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy were included at 10 hospitals and randomized into 4 groups: group 1, 2 × CC; group 2, CC followed by EVC; group 3, EVC followed by CC; and group 4, 2 × EVC. Primary outcomes included ADR and AMR.

A total of 717 patients were randomized, of whom 661 patients (92.2%) had 1 and 646 (90.1%) patients had 2 completed back-to-back colonoscopies. EVC did not significantly improve ADR compared to CC (41.1%; [95% confidence interval (CI), 36.1-46.3] vs 35.5% [95% CI, 30.7-40.6], respectively; P = .125), but EVC did reduce AMR by 11.7% (29.6% [95% CI, 23.6-36.5] vs 17.9% [95% CI, 12.5-23.5], respectively; P = .049). AMR of 2 × CC compared to 2 × EVC was also not significantly different (25.9% [95% CI, 19.3-33.9] vs 18.8% [95% CI, 13.9-24.8], respectively; P = .172). Only 3.7% of the polyps missed during the first procedures had advanced pathologic features. Factors affecting risk of missing adenomas were age (P = .002), Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (P = .008), and region where colonoscopy was performed (P < .001).

Our trial shows that EVC reduces the risk of missing adenomas but does not lead to a significantly improved ADR. Remarkably, 25% of adenomas are still missed during conventional colonoscopies, which is not different from miss rates reported 25 years ago; reassuringly, advanced features were only found in 3.7% of these missed lesions. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03418948.).

Different split regimens of polyethylene glycol are routinely used and no guidelines are available to select an optimal protocol of ingestion. This study aims to compare the efficacy and side effect profile of two different regimens of polyethylene glycol bowel preparation solution: PEG (3 + 1) vs. PEG (2 + 2).

240 patients above the age of 18 years were included in the study between June 1st and November 31st, 2023. Patients were randomly assigned either to Group A, consisting of 115 patients receiving a 3 L of PEG the night before the colonoscopy, and 1 L the same morning of the procedure. Or to group B, where 125 patients ingested 2 L the night before the procedure, and the remaining 2 L the same morning. The cleansing efficacy was evaluated by the attending endoscopist using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, through a score assigned for each segment of the colon (0-3). Side effects, tolerability, and willingness to retake the same preparation were listed by an independent investigator using a questionnaire administered before the procedure.

A higher percentage of patients had gastric fullness with the 3 + 1 vs. 2 + 2 preparation (58.3% vs. 31.2%; p <.001). A higher Boston bowel preparation score was seen in patients who took the 2 + 2 vs. 3 + 1 preparation (7.87 vs. 7.23). Using the 2 + 2 preparation was significantly associated with higher Boston bowel preparation scores vs. the 3 + 1 preparation (OR = 1.37, p =.001, 95% CI 1.14, 1.64). After adjustment over other variables (age, gender, comorbidities, previous abdominal surgeries, presence of adenoma, and time between last dose and colonoscopy), results remained the same (aOR = 1.34, p =.003, 95% CI 1.10, 1.62).

While both (2 + 2) and (3 + 1) regimens of polyethylene glycol are a good choice for a successful colonoscopy, we recommend the use of (2 + 2) regimen for its superior efficacy in bowel cleansing.

Background and study aims Currently available polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based preparations continue to represent a challenge in children. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a new low-volume PEG preparation with a conventional PEG-electrolyte solution (PEG-ES) in children and adolescents. Patients and methods This was a multicenter, randomized, observer-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 clinical trial, where patients were randomized between PMF104 (Clensia) and a conventional PEG-ES (Klean-Prep), and stratified by age stratum (2 to <6; 6 to < 12;12 to <18 years). The primary endpoint was to test the non-inferiority of PMF104 versus PEG-ES, in terms of colon cleansing. Safety, tolerability, acceptability, palatability, and compliance were also assessed. Efficacy endpoints were analyzed in the per protocol set (PPS) and full analysis set (FAS) and safety and tolerability endpoints in the safety set (SAF). Results Of the 356 patients enrolled, 258 were included in the PPS, 346 in the FAS, and 351 in the SAF. Non-inferiority of PMF104 was confirmed for children aged > 6 years and for all age groups in PPS and FAS, respectively. Optimal compliance was reported more frequently in the PMF104 than in the PEG-ES group, in both PPS (86.1% vs. 68.4%) and FAS (82.9% vs. 65.3%). Both preparations were equally safe and tolerable. Palatability and acceptability were considered better in the PMF104 group than in the PEG-ES group (27.1% vs. 15.3% and 15.3% vs. 3.5%, respectively). Conclusions In children aged 6 to 17 years, the new low-volume product PMF104 is non-inferior to the reference PEG-ES in terms of bowel cleansing, safety, and tolerability, with slightly better results in compliance, palatability, and acceptability.

Background and study aims In colonoscopy, preparation is often regarded as the most burdensome part of the intervention. Traditionally, specific diets have been recommended, but the evidence to support this policy is insufficient. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the decision not to follow a restrictive diet on bowel preparation and colonoscopy outcomes. Patients and methods This was a multicenter, controlled, non-inferiority randomized trial with FIT-positive screening colonoscopy. The subjects were assigned to follow the current standard (1-day low residue diet [LRD]) or a liberal diet. The allocation was balanced for the risk of inadequate cleansing using the Dik et al. score. All participants received the same instructions for morning colonoscopy preparation. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate preparations as defined by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Secondary outcomes included tolerability and measures of colonoscopy performance and quality. Results A total of 582 subjects were randomized. Of these, 278 who received the liberal diet and 275 who received the 1-day LRD were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. Non-inferiority was demonstrated with adequate preparation rates of 97.8% in the 1-day LRD and 96.4% in the liberal diet group. Tolerability was higher with the liberal diet (94.7% vs. 83.2%). No differences were found with respect to cecal intubation time, aspirated volume, or length of the examination. Global and right colon average adenoma detection rates per colonoscopy were similar. Conclusions The liberal diet was non-inferior to the 1-day LRD, and increased tolerability. Colonoscopy performance and quality were not affected. (NCT05032794).

For high-quality colonoscopies, adequate bowel preparation is a prerequisite, closely associated with the diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic safety of colonoscopy. Although popular-science short videos can help people quickly access health information, the overall quality of such short videos as a source of health information regarding bowel preparation before colonoscopy is unclear. Therefore, we intend to conduct a cross-sectional study to investigate the quality of bowel preparation information before colonoscopy through short videos taken on TikTok and Bilibili.

The Chinese phrases "colonoscopy" and "bowel preparation" were used as keywords to search for and screen the top 100 videos in the comprehensive rankings on TikTok and Bilibili. The Global Quality Score (GQS) and the modified DISCERN score were used to assess the quality of the information provided in these short videos.

A total of 186 short videos were included in this study; 56.5% of them were posted by health professionals, whereas 43.5% of them were posted by nonhealth professionals. The overall quality of these videos was unsatisfactory, with a median DISCERN score of 3 (2-4) and a median GQS of 3 (3-4). The radar maps showed that videos posted by gastroenterologists had higher completeness scores regarding outcomes, management, and risk factors, while nongastroenterologists had higher completeness scores concerning adverse effects, symptoms, and definitions of bowel preparation. Additionally, the median DISCERN score and GQS of the videos posted by gastroenterologists were 3 (3-4) and 3 (3-4), respectively, whereas the quality of the videos posted by patients was the worst, with a median DISCERN score of 2 (1-2) and a median GQS of 2 (1.25-3).

In conclusion, the overall quality of health information-related videos on bowel preparation before colonoscopy posted on specified short video platforms was not satisfactory. Gastroenterologists provide more information on the outcomes, management, and risk factors for bowel preparation before colonoscopy, while nongastroenterologists focus on adverse effects, symptoms, and definitions of bowel preparation.

Colonoscopy is a crucial procedure for various clinical purposes, including screening for colorectal cancer. Adequate bowel preparation is essential for its success. Poor bowel preparation can lead to bad outcomes. An objective assessment of bowel preparation quality is typically only possible after the colonoscope is inserted. This study aimed to objectively correlate the clarity of last rectal effluent, directly collected in a transparent container, with the quality of bowel preparation, and compare it with patient-reported descriptions.

This prospective, single-centre, case-control study obtained ethical clearance and included patients aged >18 years undergoing colonoscopies. Cases included patients who collected the last rectal effluent and took photographs, while controls relied on verbal descriptions. Data collected included demographics, clinical information, bowel preparation quality, and lastly, stool clarity. A statistical analysis was performed to identify correlations and associations.

Of the 70 included patients, 45 were male. The mean age was 35.8 ± 14.3 years. Cases had a higher mean age (37.8 ± 14.6). A higher number of cases had comorbidities (11, 68.8%). Photographic recording of the last rectal effluent was not associated with the adequacy of bowel preparation. Thin yellow fluid was the most common last-rectal effluent clarity (33, 47.1%). Thin, clear fluid was significantly associated with adequate bowel preparation.

Objective assessment of last rectal effluent clarity correlates with the quality of bowel preparation. This can improve the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopies and potentially reduce the need for repeat procedures, contributing to better patient outcomes and cost savings in healthcare systems.

High quality endoscopy is key for detecting and removing precursor lesions to colorectal cancer (CRC). Adenoma detection rates (ADRs) measure endoscopist performance. Improving other components of examinations could increase adenoma detection.

To investigate how endoscopist performance at flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) affects adenoma detection and CRC incidence.

Among 34,139 participants receiving FS screening by the main endoscopist at one of 13 centres in the UK FS Screening Trial, median follow-up was 17 years. Factors examined included family history of CRC, bowel preparation quality, insertion and withdrawal time, bowel segment reached, patient pain and ADR. Odds ratios (OR) for distal adenoma detection were estimated by logistic regression. Hazard ratios (HR) for distal CRC incidence were estimated by Cox regression.

At screening, 4,104 participants had distal adenomas detected and 168 participants developed distal CRC during follow-up. In multivariable models, a family history of CRC (yes vs. no: OR 1.40, 95%CI 1.21-1.62), good or adequate bowel preparation quality (vs. excellent: OR 0.84, 95%CI 0.74-0.95; OR 0.56, 95%CI 0.49-0.65, respectively) and longer insertion and withdrawal times (≥ 4.00 vs. < 2.00 min: OR 1.96, 95%CI 1.68-2.29; OR 32.79, 95%CI 28.22-38.11, respectively) were associated with adenoma detection. Being screened by endoscopists with low or intermediate ADRs, compared to high ADRs, was positively associated with CRC incidence (multivariable: HR 4.71, 95%CI 2.65-8.38; HR 2.16, 95%CI 1.22-3.81, respectively).

Bowel preparation quality and longer insertion and withdrawal time are key for improving distal adenoma detection. Higher ADRs were associated with a lower risk of distal CRC.

Primary care physicians (PCP) play a key role in offering colorectal cancer (CRC) screenings, particularly amongst underserved populations. Given potential delays in or omission of CRC screening in the absence of a PCP, we aimed to determine stage of CRC at diagnosis in an underserved population.

A retrospective chart review was conducted at two Los Angeles County safety-net hospitals. Inclusion criteria were a CRC diagnosis between 2018 and 2021 and age between 50 and 75 years at diagnosis time. The primary outcome was the cancer stage at diagnosis.

A total of 373 patients were included, of those, 52.5 % had a PCP. Compared to others, PCP was similar in age, racial composition, and primary spoken language (Table 1). Of patients with a PCP, 52.0% were diagnosed by screening. After screening, the most common indication for colonoscopy were blood per rectum (24.9 %) and imaging findings (18.0 %). Patients with a PCP had a significantly lower rate of late stage CRC than those without a PCP (42.4 % vs. 68.0 %, p < 0.001). After adjustment, having a PCP was associated with significantly reduced odds of late stage CRC (Adjusted Odds Ratio 0.83, 95 % Confidence Interval [0.68-1.04]). Having a PCP was not associated with any adjusted increase in number of adenomas or tumor size.

Patients with a PCP, irrespective of undergoing screening, were diagnosed at earlier CRC stages. This underlines the crucial role of PCPs in CRC and diagnosis, reinforcing the need for their active involvement in these processes.

Colonoscopy is widely used as a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tool. The effectiveness of a screening colonoscopy is associated with a decreased risk of CRC. However, colonoscopy is an operator-dependent procedure, and endoscopists' quality performance varies widely. This article reviewed the priority metrics and practices that contribute to high-quality screening colonoscopy in real-world clinical practice. With growing evidence, quality indicators have been subject to intense research and associated with reducing postcolonoscopy CRC incidence and mortality. Some quality metrics can reflect an endoscopy unit-based practice (i.e. quality of bowel preparation and withdrawal time). Other quality indicators primarily reflect individuals' skill and knowledge (i.e. cecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, and appropriately assigned follow-up colonoscopy interval). Measurement and improvement of priority quality indicators for colonoscopy should be made at both the endoscopist and unit levels. Substantial evidence supports the impact of high-quality colonoscopy in reducing the incidence of postcolonoscopy CRC.

Adequate bowel preparation is of paramount importance for the effectiveness of preventive colonoscopy as it allows visualization of the mucosal surface and adenomas detection, the pre-malignant lesions leading to colon cancer. Still, a considerable portion of patients fail to achieve adequate bowel cleansing, with predictors of inadequate bowel preparation being at the focal point of several studies, so far. Incorporation of these factors within predictive models has been implemented in an effort to promptly identify patients at risk for inadequate bowel preparation and thus, timely adopt practices that have the potential to improve bowel cleansing. Ultimately, this could lead to improved procedural outcomes not only in terms of neoplastic detection rate but also interval repeat procedures, expenses, patient convenience and adverse events risk. Aim of this manuscript is to present an up to date overview of all predictive scores/models addressing bowel cleansing adequacy in everyday clinical practice.

Low-volume bowel preparation solutions, including 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (PEG-A), have been developed to improve tolerability. The oral sodium sulfate tablet (OST) is a new agent with simethicone as a preloaded component. We investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of OST compared to 1-L PEG-A.

A single-center, prospective, controlled study was performed with randomization into the OST (group A) and 1-L PEG-A (group B) groups. Bowel preparation efficacy was assessed on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Bubble Scale. Safety and tolerability were evaluated using a questionnaire and laboratory examination.

Final analysis was performed on 171 patients (group A: 87, group B: 84). The proportion of bowel preparation success (BBPS ≥ 2 for each colonic segment) in group A was not inferior compared to group B (95.4% vs 96.4%, P = 0.736, 1-sided 97.5% lower confidence limit -7.0%). The adenoma detection rate was not different (59.6% vs 41.9%; P = 0.087). The bubble scale was better in group A (0.2 ± 0.9 vs 1.9 ± 1.7, P < 0.001). All adverse events were mild in both groups. Nausea was less frequent in group A (14.9% vs 38.1%, P = 0.001). Overall satisfaction was better in group A (8.1 ± 2.1 vs 6.4 ± 2.8, P < 0.001). No clinically significant laboratory abnormality developed in both groups. These findings were similarly shown in old patients ≥65 years.

Both OST and 1-L PEG-A were efficacious, safe, and tolerable for bowel preparation of colonoscopy. The OST showed fewer bubbles and slightly better tolerability.

Several bowel preparation scales have been developed, but they are variably validated to guide clinical practice. The aim of this study was to assess the interobserver reliability between internal and external endoscopists using the Harefield Cleaning Scale (HCS).

Data was collected from a study evaluating the efficacy of oral sulfate tablets in patients undergoing colonoscopy. The assessments of bowel cleansing were carried out by four internal endoscopists at the time of the procedure, and colonoscopy video recordings were reviewed independently by three external endoscopists. Interobserver reliability was quantified using Cohen's Kappa coefficient, and scores and grades of each segment were compared between internal and external endoscopist groups.

Among 83 colonoscopy videos, interobserver reliability yielded a fair agreement between internal and external endoscopists, with a Cohen's Kappa coefficient of 0.39 (95% CI 0.08-0.70). Successful overall preparation rates (100% vs 98.8%) and high-quality preparation rates (88% vs 94%) were excellent and comparable between the two groups. In contrast, one case of unsuccessful cleansing (grade C) was documented, only in the external group. In addition, the interobserver reliability between internal and external endoscopists comparing each segmental score yielded a slight agreement in the descending colon (0.11, 95% CI - 0.02 to 0.23) and sigmoid colon (0.04, 95% CI - 0.18 to 0.26).

Interobserver reliability between internal and external endoscopists using the HCS was fair. However, the HCS may be limited as a reliable scale for assessing bowel preparation quality in the left colon, where liquid is mainly retained in the left lateral position.

Colonoscopy is considered the standard procedure for early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer. Adequate bowel cleansing is an important determinant of the efficacy of colonoscopy screening. Currently, there is no standard method of bowel preparation for patients with chronic constipation. The aim was to access the rate of adequate bowel cleansing achieved using split-dose polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ELS) plus lubiprostone in comparison with split-dose PEG-ELS alone. A single-centre, endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial was conducted. Seventy-eight constipated patients aged 18-75 years who were indicated for colonoscopy in the gastroenterology unit of Srinagarind Hospital, Khon Kaen University, between February 2020 and February 2021 were randomly allocated to receive either split-dose PEG-ELS in combination with lubiprostone (N = 39) or split-dose PEG-ELS alone (N = 39) before colonoscopy. Adequate bowel cleansing was defined as an Ottawa bowel preparation score ≤ 7. The rate of adequate bowel cleansing was comparable between the PEG-ELS plus lubiprostone group and the PEG-ELS alone group (50% vs. 52.9%, p value = 0.81) with a relative risk of 1.13 (95% CI = 0.43-2.91). There were no significant differences in adenoma detection rate (41.2% vs. 35.3%, p value = 0.62), adverse events, acceptance, compliance, or patient satisfaction between the 2 groups. No additional benefit to successful bowel preparation was achieved by the combination of lubiprostone and PEG-ELS in chronic constipation patients undergoing colonoscopy.

This study aimed to analyze the correlation between different attributes of doctors who prescribe colonoscopies and the cleanliness of the intestine to guide the development of colonoscopy application protocols.

Data on colonoscopy cases conducted in the gastroenterology department of Hangzhou First People's Hospital between April 2018 and March 2021 were collected. The gender, age, professional attributes of the prescribing doctors, and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score were recorded. In addition, the correlation between the prescribing doctors' characteristics and the intestine's cleanliness was analyzed.

The study included 22,522 patients with a mean BBPS score of 6.83 ± 1.94. There were 16,459 male and 6,063 female doctors with similar BBPS scores (p = 0.212). The study found no significant difference in BBPS scores between 19,338 internist and 3,184 non-internist (p = 0.154). However, BBPS scores differed significantly between 18,168 gastroenterologists and 4,354 non-gastroenterologists (p = 0.016) and between 19,990 intestinal-related specialties(gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery) and 2,532 non-intestinal-related specialties (p = 0.000). In addition, BBPS scores were significantly different between 18,126 prescribing endoscopiests and 4,396 non-endoscopiests (p = 0.014). However, there was no significant difference in BBPS scores among doctors of different ages (p = 0.190). The study found significant differences in BBPS scores between male and female patients and those under or over 40 years (p = 0.000).

To improve colonoscopy preparation quality, priority should be given to doctors in gastroenterology, intestinal-related specialties, and endoscopiests. Their expertise may result in better education and improved bowel cleanliness.

A 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (PEG-ASC) preparation has been recently developed to improve patients' experience in colonoscopy. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of 1-L PEG-ASC compared with those of other bowel preparations for colonoscopy.

MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing 1-L PEG-ASC with other bowel preparations published through July 2022. A random-effects model was applied for pooling the results; heterogeneity was expressed as I2.

Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. The analysis showed significantly higher cleansing success (CS) (OR = 1.50; 95% CI = 1.25-1.81; p < 0.01, I2 = 0%) and right-colon high-quality cleansing (HQC) (OR = 1.67; 95% CI = 1.21-2.31; p < 0.01, I2 = 43%) with 1-L PEG-ASC compared to the other preparations. The pooled estimate of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) did not significantly differ between the two groups either in the overall (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.87-1.20; p = 0.79, I2 = 0%) or split-dosing regimen subgroup analysis (OR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.84-1.18; p = 0.94, I2 = 0%). A significantly higher pooled estimate of the number of patients with adverse events (AEs) (OR = 1.51; 95% CI = 1.23-1.84; p<0.01, I2 = 0%) and incidence of AEs (IRR=1.33; 95% CI = 1.11-1.58; p<0.01, I2 = 71%) was observed with 1-L PEG-ASC than with the other preparations. No serious AEs or deaths occurred.

Compared to other preparations, 1-L PEG-ASC yielded higher overall CS, higher right-colon HQC rates, and similar ADR. The number of patients with AEs and incidence of the total AEs were significantly higher with 1-L PEG-ASC in the absence of serious AEs.

Background and study aims Effective bowel cleansing is critical for detecting lesions during colonoscopy, highlighting the importance of bowel preparations. 1L polyethylene glycol (PEG) + ascorbate (Asc) is the only recommended 1L PEG product in Europe and the United States. Its efficacy was demonstrated in large-scale controlled trials and confirmed in smaller-scale real-world studies. However, no large-scale real-world data exist. Patients and methods This observational, retrospective, multicenter study, used outpatient follow-up data from medical records from 10 centers in Spain and two in Portugal. Outpatients aged ≥18 years using 1L PEG + Asc as bowel preparation were included. The main outcome measures were overall adequate colon cleansing (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale [BBPS] score ≥6 with BBPS score ≥2 in each segment) and high-quality cleansing of the right colon (BBPS score=3). Results Data from 13169 eligible patients were included. Overall cleansing success was achieved in 89.3% (95%CI 88.7%-89.8%) and high-quality cleansing in the right colon in 49.3% (95%CI 48.4%-50.2%) of patients. For the overnight split-dose and same-day regimens, overall adequate quality cleansing success rate was 94.7% and 86.7% ( P <0.0001) and high-quality cleansing of the right colon rate was 65.4% and 41.4% ( P <0.0001), respectively. Colonoscopy was completed in 97.3% of patients, with non-completion due to poor preparation in only 0.8%; 2.3% of patients experienced at least one adverse event (AE). Conclusions This large-scale, real-world study demonstrates the effectiveness of 1L PEG + Asc in the total and right colon, with a low percentage of patients with AEs in routine clinical practice.

An optimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy is essential to increasing the quality of the examination. Visual booklets have been proposed with conflicting results to enhance bowel preparation. A literature search was performed in March 2023 in the most important databases. Only RCTs were selected. We calculated odd ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes. Mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) were used for continuous outcomes. We estimated heterogeneity with the Chi² and the I² statistics. In cases of high heterogeneity, a random effect model was used. Six studies were selected, enrolling 1755 patients overall. Adequate bowel preparation was observed in 86.7% of the booklet group versus 77.5% of the control group, with an OR = 2.31 in favor of the booklet. In studies using a 4-L PEG-based preparation, no difference compared to controls was observed, while in non-PEG formulations, preparation with booklets was better than in controls (OR = 5.10, 95% CI 1.82-14.27, p = 0.002). Two studies were performed in an inpatient setting without any differences between booklets and controls, while outpatients receiving booklets had better results (OR = 7.13, 95% CI 5.39-9.45, p < 0.001). The adenoma detection rate was similar between the two groups. In conclusion, booklets are useful to improve bowel preparation. Outpatient settings and preparations not containing PEG could benefit more from booklets.