Latvian
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Colorectal Disease 2008-Jun

A randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy and acceptability of phospo-soda buffered saline (Fleet) with sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate (Picoprep) in the preparation of patients for colonoscopy.

Rakstu tulkošanu var veikt tikai reģistrēti lietotāji
Ielogoties Reģistrēties
Saite tiek saglabāta starpliktuvē
A J Renaut
S Raniga
F A Frizelle
R E Perry
L Guilford

Atslēgvārdi

Abstrakts

OBJECTIVE

Small-volume bowel preparations for colonoscopy has become increasingly popular due to improved tolerance by patients and equivalent efficacy compared with the larger volume preparations. Comparative studies, however, between small volume preparations are lacking. This randomized controlled trial aimed at comparing the efficacy and acceptability of phospo-soda buffered saline (Fleet) with sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate (Picoprep) in the preparation of patients for colonoscopy.

METHODS

A randomized prospective trial designed to compare the efficacy and acceptability of Fleet with Picoprep in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive either Fleet or Picoprep as bowel preparation. Patients were asked to score the acceptability and to comment specifically on adverse events, namely headache, nausea and vomiting. The efficacy of the preparation was also assessed. The results showed no difference in efficacy (P = 0.06, chi(2) test), but there was a significant difference in acceptability (P = 0.01, chi(2) test). and side effects of patients suffering nausea (P = 0.003, chi(2) test), in favour of Picoprep.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst there was no difference in efficacy, there was a significant difference in acceptability and side effects in favour of Picoprep.

Pievienojieties mūsu
facebook lapai

Vispilnīgākā ārstniecības augu datu bāze, kuru atbalsta zinātne

  • Darbojas 55 valodās
  • Zāļu ārstniecības līdzekļi, kurus atbalsta zinātne
  • Garšaugu atpazīšana pēc attēla
  • Interaktīva GPS karte - atzīmējiet garšaugus atrašanās vietā (drīzumā)
  • Lasiet zinātniskās publikācijas, kas saistītas ar jūsu meklēšanu
  • Meklēt ārstniecības augus pēc to iedarbības
  • Organizējiet savas intereses un sekojiet līdzi jaunumiem, klīniskajiem izmēģinājumiem un patentiem

Ierakstiet simptomu vai slimību un izlasiet par garšaugiem, kas varētu palīdzēt, ierakstiet zāli un redziet slimības un simptomus, pret kuriem tā tiek lietota.
* Visa informācija ir balstīta uz publicētiem zinātniskiem pētījumiem

Google Play badgeApp Store badge