Predictors of Inadequate Bowel Preparation and Salvage Options on Colonoscopy

Ju Sung Sim; Ja Seol Koo

doi:10.5946/ce.2016.094

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Clin Endosc > Volume 49(4); 2016 > Article

Review Predictors of Inadequate Bowel Preparation and Salvage Options on Colonoscopy: Ju Sung Sim, Ja Seol Koo; Clinical Endoscopy 2016;49(4):346-349.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2016.094
Published online: July 29, 2016

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence: Ja Seol Koo, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, 123 Jeokgeum-ro, Danwon-gu, Ansan 15355, Korea Tel: +82-31-412-5580, Fax: +82-31-412-5582, E-mail: jskoo@korea.ac.kr

• Received: July 1, 2016 • Revised: July 18, 2016 • Accepted: July 18, 2016

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

8,760 Views
236 Download
22 Web of Science
23 Crossref
25 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
PATIENT-RELATED RISK FACTORS OF INADEQUATE BOWEL PREPARATION
SALVAGE OPTIONS FOR INADEQUATE PREPARATION
CONCLUSIONS
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

Inadequate bowel preparation is observed in more than 25% of all colonoscopies. Identification of predictive factors for inadequate colon cleaning is helpful and more detailed preparation methods should be used for patients at high risk. Age, male sex, inpatient status, and comorbidities were identified as independent risk factors in several previous studies. In patients with insufficient colon preparation, colon irrigation with endoscopic pumps or next-day colonoscopy following further bowel cleaning should be performed. In order to improve the efficacy and safety of both bowel preparation and colonoscopy, the endoscopic team should identify the patient’s medical conditions and choose the optimal bowel preparation agent and regimen.
Keywords: Bowel preparation; Colonoscopy; Colon cleaning

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy is regarded as the most effective tool for colorectal screening in older patients (>50 years of age) with an average risk of colorectal cancer and in younger patients with a high risk of colorectal cancer [1].

Decreased incidence of colon cancer is associated with optimal colonoscopic examination of the entire colon. Regardless of indication, the success of colonoscopy is closely related to adequate colon preparation. However, it has been reported that inadequate bowel cleaning is observed in approximately 25% of all colonoscopies [2,3]. Adverse results of insufficient colon cleaning include decreased adenoma detection and cecal intubation rates, prolonged procedural times, and shortened surveillance intervals [3-6].

Numerous studies have investigated the risk factors of inadequate bowel cleaning [7-9] and found that it occurs more frequently in patients with a history of insufficient colon cleaning, polypharmacy (due to the effect of constipating medication), obesity, old age, male patients, and in those with combined medical diseases such as diabetes mellitus, stroke, dementia, and Parkinson’s disease [10-12]. In addition, poor compliance with bowel cleaning procedures, inadequate administration of bowel preparation agent, and prolonged pre-procedure waiting times have been shown to result in poor colon cleaning [11,12]. It is crucial that physicians bear these numerous modifiable factors in mind, with the aim of reducing the incidence of failed colonoscopies and to improve results. In this section, patient-associated risk factors for inadequate colon cleaning and salvage methods will be discussed.

PATIENT-RELATED RISK FACTORS OF INADEQUATE BOWEL PREPARATION

Several studies have reported that advanced age is a predictive factor for inadequate bowel cleaning in colonoscopy. One retrospective study showed that patients aged older than 66 years were associated with insufficient bowel cleaning for colonoscopy [12]. In two recent studies in Asia, patients aged older than 60 years were found to be closely associated with inadequate colon cleaning [13,14].

It is recognized that advanced age is associated with decreased colon transit, increased comorbidity, and polypharmacy; all of which are known risk factors for poor colon cleansing [15-19]. However, a large-scale prospective study found that age was not likely to affect the quality of bowel cleaning for colonoscopy [20], although patient mean age (56 years) was significantly lower than that reported by other studies.

Studies conducted in both the West and the East [20,21] have previously reported that male sex is an independent risk factor for inadequate bowel cleaning. In a study of 649 patients, 141 patients were shown to have undergone poor bowel preparation and male sex was found to be a significant predictive factor for poor bowel cleaning [20].

The relationship of comorbidities with optimal bowel preparation has previously been investigated in several studies. In a recent study of 300 outpatients who underwent colonoscopies, polypharmacy (defined as more than eight active medications available by prescription), which is an indicator of comorbidities, was found to be a risk factor for inadequate bowel cleaning [22].

Among frequent chronic diseases, diabetes in particular has been consistently associated with inadequate bowel cleaning. In a study of 367 Korean patients, it was demonstrated that the risk of poor bowel cleaning was higher in diabetic patients when compared with non-diabetic patients (odds ratio, 8.6) [13]. Taylor and Schubert [23] used a standard polyethylene glycol (PEG) bowel preparation and showed that the optimal bowel cleaning rate was 97% in non-diabetic patients compared to 62% in diabetic patients. Diabetes is associated with reduced colonic and general gastrointestinal transit [24,25], resulting in a higher occurrence of inadequate bowel cleaning.

In addition, stroke and dementia are known to be high risk factors for inadequate bowel cleaning [20], possibly associated with decreased gastrointestinal motility and the patients’ capacity to follow bowel cleaning instructions. One study further revealed that previous surgery of the abdominal or pelvic organs was a risk factor for poor bowel cleaning [21].

In both inpatients and outpatients referred from other clinic, bowel preparation for colonoscopy can be inadequate and is likely associated with comorbidities. Previous studies [20,21] have shown that inpatient status is associated with increased inadequate bowel cleaning, which is further associated with prolonged immobility and low compliance with preparation procedures, due to underlying disease. In colon surgery, outpatient bowel cleaning has been associated with a better result than that of inpatients, who have increased comorbidities [24].

However, a model based on the aforementioned risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation has been shown to have a prediction rate of just 60% [11]. Therefore, in patients undergoing their first colonoscopy, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines do not recommend the use of this model for identifying those with a high risk of poor colon cleaning and modifying the colon preparation [26].

SALVAGE OPTIONS FOR INADEQUATE PREPARATION

In patients with insufficient bowel preparation, the use of endoscopic irrigation pumps or repeated colonoscopy on the following day (after further colon cleaning) is recommended by the ESGE guidelines, although evidence supporting these approaches is weak [26].

If patients with a high risk of inadequate preparation can be identified before colonoscopy, salvage options to improve the quality of bowel preparation could be used before sedation. In patients with brown liquid or solid effluent, the probability of inadequate bowel preparation has been reported to be 54% [27]. In such cases, additional bowel cleaning using large-volume enemas or extra oral purgatives could be performed.

The usefulness of an endoscopic enema as a salvage method at colonoscopy has been previously described [28,29]. In those studies, patients were able to use the bathroom to remove residual fluid. One study investigated the method in 21 adults (mean age, 66 years) with insufficient bowel preparation [29]. After inserting the colonoscope as proximally as possible, enemas of either sodium phosphate (133 mL/19 g) followed by bisacodyl (37 mL/10 mg), or two bisacodyl, were administered into the colon via the colonoscope channel. After administration of the enema, successful colon preparations were reported in all cases. Another study evaluated 26 adults (median age, 59 years) using the Aronchick scale for assessment of preparation quality on the rectosigmoid colon [28]. In those patients with insufficient bowel preparation, a salvage enema with PEG (500 mL) was applied on the area of hepatic flexure through an accessory channel of the colonoscope. By adapting the method, 25 patients (96%) were converted to cases of successful bowel preparation (excellent or good).

The main cause of failure at second colonoscopy was insufficient colon preparation (23%) among patients undergoing a second examination due to inadequate cleaning at first colonoscopy [30]. In such cases, examination on the following day could improve bowel preparation as opposed to examination at any other time.

In a study of adult patients with a previous inadequate preparation for colonoscopy, an intensive bowel preparation method was performed before the second examination [31]. Using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), a score of 0 or 1 on any segment was regarded as inadequate preparation at first colonoscopy. In such cases, the intensive preparation method included a low-fiber diet for 3 days, followed by a liquid diet the day before colonoscopy. On the evening of the colonoscopy, bisacodyl (10 mg) with PEG-electrolyte lavage solution (ELS; 1.5 L) was administered. A second dose of PEG-ELS (1.5 L) was provided on the day of the examination. Using this method, 90% of patients were scored as having optimal cleaning on the BBPS (≥2 for each segment).

CONCLUSIONS

Adequate bowel preparation is crucial to the efficacy and safety of the colonoscopy procedure. However, bowel preparation is limited by the patient’s special conditions; such as age, sex, and underlying diseases that can prevent compliance with bowel preparation orders. Therefore, it is essential that the endoscopy team identifies the patient’s special situation and selects a proper cleaning agent and regimen, including supplemental measures, in order to improve the efficacy and safety of bowel preparation and hence colonoscopy.

NOTES

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Johnson DA, Barkun AN, Cohen LB, et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2014;109:1528–1545.Article PubMed PDF
2. Vanner SJ, MacDonald PH, Paterson WG, Prentice RS, Da Costa LR, Beck IT. A randomized prospective trial comparing oral sodium phosphate with standard polyethylene glycol-based lavage solution (Golytely) in the preparation of patients for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 1990;85:422–427.PubMed
3. Kolts BE, Lyles WE, Achem SR, Burton L, Geller AJ, MacMath T. A comparison of the effectiveness and patient tolerance of oral sodium phosphate, castor oil, and standard electrolyte lavage for colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy preparation. Am J Gastroenterol 1993;88:1218–1223.PubMed
4. Cohen SM, Wexner SD, Binderow SR, et al. Prospective, randomized, endoscopic-blinded trial comparing precolonoscopy bowel cleansing methods. Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37:689–696.Article PubMed
5. Afridi SA, Barthel JS, King PD, Pineda JJ, Marshall JB. Prospective, randomized trial comparing a new sodium phosphate-bisacodyl regimen with conventional PEG-ES lavage for outpatient colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc 1995;41:485–489.Article PubMed
6. Golub RW, Kerner BA, Wise WE Jr, et al. Colonoscopic bowel preparations: which one? A blinded, prospective, randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum 1995;38:594–599.Article PubMed
7. Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S, et al. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97:1296–1308.Article PubMed
8. Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:873–885.Article PubMed
9. Chokshi RV, Hovis CE, Hollander T, Early DS, Wang JS. Prevalence of missed adenomas in patients with inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:1197–1203.Article PubMed
10. Wexner SD, Beck DE, Baron TH, et al. A consensus document on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: prepared by a task force from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Gastrointest Endosc 2006;63:894–909.Article PubMed
11. Hassan C, Fuccio L, Bruno M, et al. A predictive model identifies patients most likely to have inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;10:501–506.Article PubMed
12. Nguyen DL, Wieland M. Risk factors predictive of poor quality preparation during average risk colonoscopy screening: the importance of health literacy. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2010;19:369–372.PubMed
13. Chan WK, Saravanan A, Manikam J, Goh KL, Mahadeva S. Appointment waiting times and education level influence the quality of bowel preparation in adult patients undergoing colonoscopy. BMC Gastroenterol 2011;11:86.Article PubMed PMC PDF
14. Chung YW, Han DS, Park KH, et al. Patient factors predictive of inadequate bowel preparation using polyethylene glycol: a prospective study in Korea. J Clin Gastroenterol 2009;43:448–452.Article PubMed
15. Schiller LR. Clinical pharmacology and use of laxatives and lavage solutions. J Clin Gastroenterol 1999;28:11–18.Article PubMed
16. Gallagher P, O'Mahony D. Constipation in old age. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2009;23:875–887.Article PubMed
17. Heppner HJ, Christ M, Gosch M, et al. Polypharmacy in the elderly from the clinical toxicologist perspective. Z Gerontol Geriatr 2012;45:473–478.Article PubMed
18. Cameron AJ, Shaw JE, Zimmet PZ. The metabolic syndrome: prevalence in worldwide populations. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 2004;33:351–375.Article PubMed
19. Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics: 2012 update. A report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2012;125:e2–e220.Article PubMed PMC
20. Ness RM, Manam R, Hoen H, Chalasani N. Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:1797–1802.Article PubMed
21. Bowles CJ, Leicester R, Romaya C, Swarbrick E, Williams CB, Epstein O. A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow? Gut 2004;53:277–283.Article PubMed PMC
22. Lebwohl B, Wang TC, Neugut AI. Socioeconomic and other predictors of colonoscopy preparation quality. Dig Dis Sci 2010;55:2014–2020.Article PubMed
23. Taylor C, Schubert ML. Decreased efficacy of polyethylene glycol lavage solution (golytely) in the preparation of diabetic patients for outpatient colonoscopy: a prospective and blinded study. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:710–714.Article PubMed
24. Lee EC, Roberts PL, Taranto R, Schoetz DJ Jr, Murray JJ, Coller JA. Inpatient vs. outpatient bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39:369–373.Article PubMed
25. Hunter A, Mamula P. Bowel preparation for pediatric colonoscopy procedures. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2010;51:254–261.Article PubMed
26. Hassan C, Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF, et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2013;45:142–150.Article PubMed PDF
27. Fatima H, Johnson CS, Rex DK. Patients' description of rectal effluent and quality of bowel preparation at colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:1244–1252; e2.Article PubMed
28. Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y, Kajiyama M, et al. Colonoscopic enema as rescue for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a prospective, observational study. Colorectal Dis 2012;14:e735–e739.Article PubMed
29. Sohn N, Weinstein MA. Management of the poorly prepared colonoscopy patient: colonoscopic colon enemas as a preparation for colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 2008;51:462–466.Article PubMed
30. Ben-Horin S, Bar-Meir S, Avidan B. The outcome of a second preparation for colonoscopy after preparation failure in the first procedure. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;69(3 Pt 2):626–630.Article PubMed
31. Ibáñez M, Parra-Blanco A, Zaballa P, et al. Usefulness of an intensive bowel cleansing strategy for repeat colonoscopy after preparation failure. Dis Colon Rectum 2011;54:1578–1584.Article PubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Comparison of Objectively Assessed Versus Patient-Reported Clarity of Last Rectal Effluent for the Prediction of Quality of Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Prospective, Case-Control Study
Ajay Patwa, Satish Kumar, Deepak Bhagchandani, Amit Kumar, Virendra Atam, Navneet Anil, Priya Mishra, Abhishek Singh, Archana Devi, Ajay K Pal
Cureus.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Evaluation of bowel preparation regimens for colonoscopy including a novel low volume regimen (Plenvu): CLEANSE study
Ahmir Ahmad, Sarah Marshall, Paul Bassett, Kowshika Thiruvilangam, Angad Dhillon, Brian P Saunders
BMJ Open Gastroenterology.2023; 10(1): e001070. CrossRef
Optimization of colonoscopy quality: Comprehensive review of the literature and future perspectives
Wen‐Feng Hsu, Han‐Mo Chiu
Digestive Endoscopy.2023; 35(7): 822. CrossRef
Two Centers Affiliated to Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
M Alizadeh Nayini, A Molvi, M Ghorbani, F Banaei
Armaghane Danesh.2023; 28(3): 371. CrossRef
Regression and Random Forest Machine Learning Have Limited Performance in Predicting Bowel Preparation in Veteran Population
Jacob E. Kurlander, Akbar K. Waljee, Stacy B. Menees, Rachel Lipson, Alex N. Kokaly, Andrew J. Read, Karmel S. Shehadeh, Amy Cohn, Sameer D. Saini
Digestive Diseases and Sciences.2022; 67(7): 2827. CrossRef
Comparison of 2 L Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid and 4 L Polyethylene Glycol in Elderly Patients Aged 60–79: A Prospective Randomized Study
Sung Hoon Jung, Chul-Hyun Lim, Tae-Geun Gweon, Jinsu Kim, Jung Hwan Oh, Kyu-Tae Yoon, Jee Young An, Jeong‑Seon Ji, Hwang Choi
Digestive Diseases and Sciences.2022; 67(10): 4841. CrossRef
Bowel cleansing efficacy of 1 L NER1006versus macrogol and 3 L polyethylene glycol using split‐dose administration
Priya Sinh, Katherine Dunn, Sneha John
JGH Open.2022; 6(12): 824. CrossRef
Detection of Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Neoplasia by Multi-target Stool DNA
Derek W. Ebner, Jason D. Eckmann, Kelli N. Burger, Douglas W. Mahoney, Jamie Bering, Allon Kahn, Eduardo A. Rodriguez, David O. Prichard, Michael B. Wallace, Sunanda V. Kane, Lila J. Finney Rutten, Suryakanth R. Gurudu, John B. Kisiel
Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology.2021; 12(6): e00375. CrossRef
Polyethylene Glycol Versus Senna for Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in Children: Updated Evidence by a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Jun Watanabe, Kazuhiko Kotani
Cureus.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Efectividad y tolerabilidad de tres tipos de productos de preparación para colonoscopia
Luis Fernando Roldán Molina, Lina María Roldán Delfino, Sandra Milena León Ramírez, Edilberto Elías Nuñez Cabarcas, Hilda María Pérez Useche, Antonio José Restrepo Peláez, María Adelaida Saffón Abad, Julio Eduardo Zuleta Muñoz, Juan Nicolás Zuluaga Aguila
Revista colombiana de Gastroenterología.2021; 36(3): 334. CrossRef
Factors affecting bowel preparation adequacy and procedural time
Mohammadali Zad, Cuong N Do, Aaron Heffernan, Lucy Johnston, Mohammed Al‐Ansari
JGH Open.2020; 4(2): 206. CrossRef
Impact of carotid atherosclerosis in CHA₂DS₂-VASc-based risk score on predicting ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation
Dong-Hyuk Cho, Jong-Il Choi, Jimi Choi, Yun Gi Kim, Suk-Kyu Oh, Hyungdon Kook, Kwang No Lee, Jaemin Shim, Seong-Mi Park, Wan Joo Shim, Young-Hoon Kim
The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine.2020;[Epub] CrossRef
Adenoma miss rate of polypectomy-referring hospitals is high in Korea
Ju Hyun Seo, Bo-In Lee, Kyungjin Lee, Jae Myung Park, Jin Soo Kim, Young-Seok Cho, Kang-Moon Lee, Sang Woo Kim, Hwang Choi, Myung-Gyu Choi
The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine.2020; 35(4): 881. CrossRef
Efficacy and Tolerability of Prucalopride in Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Sung-Wook Park, Seok-Pyo Shin, Ji Taek Hong
Advances in Therapy.2020; 37(5): 2507. CrossRef
Quality of same-day CT colonography following incomplete optical colonoscopy
Aileen O’Shea, Ann T. Foran, Timothy E. Murray, Eavan Thornton, Ruth Dunne, Michael J. Lee, Martina M. Morrin
European Radiology.2020; 30(12): 6508. CrossRef
Comparison of Oral Sulfate Solution and Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid on the Efficacy of Bowel Preparation
Ji Hyung Nam, Seok Bo Hong, Yun Jeong Lim, Seongju Lee, Hyoun Woo Kang, Jae Hak Kim, Jin Ho Lee
Clinical Endoscopy.2020; 53(5): 568. CrossRef
Efficacy and Patient Tolerability Profiles of Probiotic Solution with Bisacodyl Versus Conventional Cleansing Solution for Bowel Preparation: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial
Youn I Choi, Jong-Joon Lee, Jun-Won Chung, Kyoung Oh Kim, Yoon Jae Kim, Jung Ho Kim, Dong Kyun Park, Kwang An Kwon
Journal of Clinical Medicine.2020; 9(10): 3286. CrossRef
Whole-colon investigation vs. flexible sigmoidoscopy for suspected colorectal cancer based on presenting symptoms and signs: a multicentre cohort study
Amanda J. Cross, Kate Wooldrage, Emma C. Robbins, Kevin Pack, Jeremy P. Brown, William Hamilton, Michael R. Thompson, Karen G. Flashman, Steve Halligan, Siwan Thomas-Gibson, Margaret Vance, Brian P. Saunders, Wendy Atkin
British Journal of Cancer.2019; 120(2): 154. CrossRef
Factors Affecting Proximal Colon Cleansing Based on Bowel Movement Kinetics: A Prospective Observational Study
Dae Bum Kim, Kang-Moon Lee, Sung-Goo Kang, Sung Hoon Jung
Gastroenterology Research and Practice.2019; 2019: 1. CrossRef
Predictive factors for inadequate bowel preparation using low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbic acid for an outpatient colonoscopy
Seung Yong Shin, Kyeong Seon Ga, In Young Kim, Yoo Mi Park, Da Hyun Jung, Jie-Hyun Kim, Young Hoon Youn, Hyojin Park, Jae Jun Park
Scientific Reports.2019;[Epub] CrossRef
Straight-to-test faecal tagging CT colonography for exclusion of colon cancer in symptomatic patients under the English 2-week-wait cancer investigation pathway: a service review
J.A. Stephenson, J. Pancholi, C.V. Ivan, J.H. Mullineux, H. Patel, R. Verma, M. Elabassy
Clinical Radiology.2018; 73(9): 836.e1. CrossRef
Impact of diet restriction on bowel preparation for colonoscopy
Seung-Joo Nam, Young Jin Kim, Bora Keum, Jae Min Lee, Seung Han Kim, Hyuk Soon Choi, Eun Sun Kim, Yeon Seok Seo, Yoon Tae Jeen, Hong Sik Lee, Hoon Jai Chun, Soon Ho Um, Chang Duck Kim
Medicine.2018; 97(41): e12645. CrossRef
A randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of 1-L polyethylene glycol solution with ascorbic acid plus prucalopride versus 2-L polyethylene glycol solution with ascorbic acid for bowel preparation
Seong Ji Choi, Eun Sun Kim, Byeong Kwang Choi, Geeho Min, Woojung Kim, Jung Min Lee, Jae Min Lee, Seung Han Kim, Hyuk Soon Choi, Bora Keum, Yoon Tae Jeen, Hong Sik Lee, Hoon Jai Chun, Chang Duck Kim
Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology.2018; 53(12): 1619. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Predictors of Inadequate Bowel Preparation and Salvage Options on Colonoscopy

Clin Endosc. 2016;49(4):346-349. Published online July 29, 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2016.094

XML Download

We recommend