Cheng Ji, Tao Kaixiong, Shuai Xiaoming, Gao Jinbo
Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No. 1277 Jiefang Avenue, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Surg Endosc. 2016 Sep;30(9):4033-41. doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4716-6. Epub 2015 Dec 17.
Adequate bowel cleansing is of great importance for a high-quality colonoscopy examination. Nevertheless, whether sodium phosphate or polyethylene glycol is a gold standard agent for bowel preparation is still under debate. In consideration of the clinical needs, we thus performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials concerning the comparison between both regimens. The efficacy, safety and acceptability of each regimen are major indicators to measure and appraise.
By searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases, 15 original trials published from 2000 to 2014 were included as eligible studies. We carried out data extraction and subsequent pooling analysis for each indicator in a standard manner. Sensitivity analysis was performed by elimination of low-quality trials, while a funnel plot and Egger's test were employed to analyze the publication bias across studies.
Our pooling analysis revealed that patients undergoing sodium phosphate as a cleansing agent displayed better acceptability, compliance, cleansing scores, preparation taste, polyp detection rate and less adverse effects including nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain (P < 0.05). In terms of procedure time, adequate preparation rate and electrolyte concentration, there was no significant difference between both regimens (P > 0.05). The pooling analysis offered stable conclusions which were verified by our sensitivity analysis. There was no publication bias across studies as a symmetric funnel plot was demonstrated and the result of Egger's test was P = 0.56.
Regarding preparation efficacy, safety and acceptability, sodium phosphate was a better agent than polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy bowel cleansing, with its advantages of higher efficacy, better tolerability and acceptability as well as comparable safety.
充分的肠道准备对于高质量的结肠镜检查至关重要。然而,磷酸钠和聚乙二醇哪种是肠道准备的金标准药物仍存在争议。考虑到临床需求,我们因此对关于这两种方案比较的随机对照试验进行了更新的荟萃分析。每种方案的疗效、安全性和可接受性是衡量和评估的主要指标。
通过检索PubMed、EMBASE、Web of Science和Cochrane图书馆数据库,纳入了2000年至2014年发表的15项原始试验作为合格研究。我们以标准方式对每个指标进行数据提取和后续汇总分析。通过剔除低质量试验进行敏感性分析,同时采用漏斗图和Egger检验分析各研究间的发表偏倚。
我们的汇总分析显示,使用磷酸钠作为清洁剂的患者表现出更好的可接受性、依从性、清洁评分、准备口感、息肉检出率,且不良反应(包括恶心、呕吐和腹痛)更少(P < 0.05)。在操作时间、充分准备率和电解质浓度方面,两种方案之间没有显著差异(P > 0.05)。汇总分析提供了稳定的结论,我们的敏感性分析也证实了这一点。各研究间没有发表偏倚,因为呈现了对称的漏斗图,Egger检验结果为P = 0.56。
在准备疗效、安全性和可接受性方面,磷酸钠是比聚乙二醇更好的结肠镜肠道准备药物,具有更高的疗效、更好的耐受性和可接受性以及相当的安全性。