用于儿童肠道准备的皮果硫酸钠和柠檬酸镁与聚乙二醇:系统回顾

IF 1.3 Q3 PEDIATRICS Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition Pub Date : 2022-05-01 Epub Date: 2022-05-09 DOI:10.5223/pghn.2022.25.3.228
Piotr Dziechciarz, Marek Ruszczyński, Andrea Horvath
{"title":"用于儿童肠道准备的皮果硫酸钠和柠檬酸镁与聚乙二醇:系统回顾","authors":"Piotr Dziechciarz, Marek Ruszczyński, Andrea Horvath","doi":"10.5223/pghn.2022.25.3.228","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the effectiveness, tolerability, acceptability, and safety of sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate (PS/Mg) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) in children (≤18 years) preparing for colonoscopy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched till July 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. At least two authors independently selected studies and performed risk of bias assessment and data extraction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four RCTs (n=390), with overall good quality were included. A meta-analysis of two trials (n=224) found no statistically significant difference between the groups with respect to the proportion of patients who had excellent and good scores (≥6 points) according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (relative risk: 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90 to 1.08). Excellent and good scores were observed in both groups in approximately 90% of children. A meta-analysis of two other trials (n=150) showed no significant difference between the groups with respect to the mean total score for the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (mean difference: 0.20; 95% CI: -0.74 to 1.14). Both regimens provided a comparable safety profile; however, PS/Mg was significantly superior to high volume PEG in terms of tolerability (abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, bloating/flatulence/fullness) and acceptability (ease of formulation consumption, taste acceptance, need for nasogastric tube, compliance with full dose).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PS/Mg provides a quality and safety profile similar to PEG for bowel cleansing; however, it has better acceptance and tolerance in children preparing for colonoscopy.</p>","PeriodicalId":19989,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9110845/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sodium Picosulphate with Magnesium Citrate versus Polyethylene Glycol for Bowel Preparation in Children: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Piotr Dziechciarz, Marek Ruszczyński, Andrea Horvath\",\"doi\":\"10.5223/pghn.2022.25.3.228\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the effectiveness, tolerability, acceptability, and safety of sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate (PS/Mg) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) in children (≤18 years) preparing for colonoscopy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched till July 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. At least two authors independently selected studies and performed risk of bias assessment and data extraction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four RCTs (n=390), with overall good quality were included. A meta-analysis of two trials (n=224) found no statistically significant difference between the groups with respect to the proportion of patients who had excellent and good scores (≥6 points) according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (relative risk: 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90 to 1.08). Excellent and good scores were observed in both groups in approximately 90% of children. A meta-analysis of two other trials (n=150) showed no significant difference between the groups with respect to the mean total score for the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (mean difference: 0.20; 95% CI: -0.74 to 1.14). Both regimens provided a comparable safety profile; however, PS/Mg was significantly superior to high volume PEG in terms of tolerability (abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, bloating/flatulence/fullness) and acceptability (ease of formulation consumption, taste acceptance, need for nasogastric tube, compliance with full dose).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PS/Mg provides a quality and safety profile similar to PEG for bowel cleansing; however, it has better acceptance and tolerance in children preparing for colonoscopy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9110845/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5223/pghn.2022.25.3.228\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/5/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5223/pghn.2022.25.3.228","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/5/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较皮磷酸钠与枸橼酸镁(PS/Mg)和聚乙二醇(PEG)对准备接受结肠镜检查的儿童(18 岁以下)的有效性、耐受性、可接受性和安全性:检索了三个电子数据库(MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane 对照试验中央登记册),检索期至 2020 年 7 月。仅纳入随机对照试验(RCT)。至少有两名作者独立选择研究,并进行偏倚风险评估和数据提取:结果:共纳入四项随机对照试验(n=390),总体质量良好。对两项试验(n=224)进行的荟萃分析发现,根据波士顿肠道准备量表(Boston Bowel Preparation Scale),获得优秀和良好评分(≥6 分)的患者比例在组间无统计学差异(相对风险:0.99;95% 置信区间 [CI]:0.90 至 1.08)。两组中均有约 90% 的患儿获得优和良的评分。对另外两项试验(n=150)进行的荟萃分析表明,在渥太华肠道准备量表的平均总分方面,两组之间没有显著差异(平均差异:0.20;95% 置信区间:-0.74 至 1.14)。两种治疗方案的安全性相当;但在耐受性(腹痛、恶心、呕吐、腹胀/胀气/饱胀)和可接受性(配方服用的难易程度、对口味的接受程度、鼻胃管的需求、对全剂量的依从性)方面,PS/Mg明显优于大容量PEG:结论:PS/Mg 在肠道清洁方面的质量和安全性与 PEG 相似,但在准备接受结肠镜检查的儿童中具有更好的接受性和耐受性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Sodium Picosulphate with Magnesium Citrate versus Polyethylene Glycol for Bowel Preparation in Children: A Systematic Review.

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness, tolerability, acceptability, and safety of sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate (PS/Mg) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) in children (≤18 years) preparing for colonoscopy.

Methods: Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched till July 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. At least two authors independently selected studies and performed risk of bias assessment and data extraction.

Results: Four RCTs (n=390), with overall good quality were included. A meta-analysis of two trials (n=224) found no statistically significant difference between the groups with respect to the proportion of patients who had excellent and good scores (≥6 points) according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (relative risk: 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90 to 1.08). Excellent and good scores were observed in both groups in approximately 90% of children. A meta-analysis of two other trials (n=150) showed no significant difference between the groups with respect to the mean total score for the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (mean difference: 0.20; 95% CI: -0.74 to 1.14). Both regimens provided a comparable safety profile; however, PS/Mg was significantly superior to high volume PEG in terms of tolerability (abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, bloating/flatulence/fullness) and acceptability (ease of formulation consumption, taste acceptance, need for nasogastric tube, compliance with full dose).

Conclusion: PS/Mg provides a quality and safety profile similar to PEG for bowel cleansing; however, it has better acceptance and tolerance in children preparing for colonoscopy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (Pediatr Gastroenterol Hepatol Nutr), an official journal of The Korean Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, is issued bimonthly and published in English. The aim of Pediatr Gastroenterol Hepatol Nutr is to advance scientific knowledge and promote child healthcare by publishing high-quality empirical and theoretical studies and providing a recently updated knowledge to those practitioners and scholars in the field of pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition. Pediatr Gastroenterol Hepatol Nutr publishes review articles, original articles, and case reports. All of the submitted papers are peer-reviewed. The journal covers basic and clinical researches on molecular and cellular biology, pathophysiology, epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of all aspects of pediatric gastrointestinal diseases and nutritional health problems.
期刊最新文献
Association between Transfusion-Related Iron Overload and Liver Fibrosis in Survivors of Pediatric Leukemia: A Cross-Sectional Study. Benefits and Risks of Preprepared Parenteral Nutrition for Early Amino Acid Administration in Premature Infants with Very Low Birth Weight. Combined Predictors of Long-Term Outcomes of Kasai Surgery in Infants with Biliary Atresia. Current Pediatric Endoscopy Training Situation in the Asia-Pacific Region: A Collaborative Survey by the Asian Pan-Pacific Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition Endoscopy Scientific Subcommittee. Prevalence of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Unclassified, as Estimated Using the Revised Porto Criteria, among Korean Pediatric Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1