Prospective randomized comparison of oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol lavage for colonoscopy preparation

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 11, Issue 47

This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

All Articles published online

Item

Count

PDF

393

HTML

2701

Tables (1-8)

223

Sum=3317

Dec 21, 2005 (publication date) through Nov 4, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastroenterology

ISSN

1007-9327

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Clinical Research

World J Gastroenterol. Dec 21, 2005; 11(47): 7486-7493
Published online Dec 21, 2005. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v11.i47.7486

Table 5 Colonic segmental assessment of preparation

	Stool amount (none/small) N (%)			Stool consistency (none/clear lavage) N (%)			% Colonic wall visualized (≥75%) N (%)
	NaP (N = 38)	PEG (N = 40)	P	NaP (N = 38)	PEG (N = 40)	P	NaP (N = 38)	PEG (N = 40)	P
Rectum	37 (97.4)	33 (82.5)	0.057	31 (81.6)	32 (80.0)	1.000	37 (97.4)	37 (92.5)	0.616
Descending	36 (94.7)	28 (70.0)	0.007	32 (84.2)	33 (82.5)	1.000	38 (100)	35 (87.5)	0.055
Transverse¹	35 (94.6)	29 (74.4)	0.025	31 (83.8)	34 (87.2)	0.752	37 (100)	37 (94.9)	0.494
Ascending²	35 (100)	35 (89.7)	0.117	24 (68.6)	31 (79.5)	0.302	35 (100)	38 (97.4)	1.000
Cecum²	35 (100)	35 (89.7)	0.117	23 (65.7)	31 (79.5)	0.202	35 (100)	37 (94.9)	0.495

¹One patient in NaP group and 1 in PEG group did not have this data.

²Three patients in NaP group and 1 in PEG group did not have this data.

Citation: Hwang KL, Chen WTL, Hsiao KH, Chen HC, Huang TM, Chiu CM, Hsu GH. Prospective randomized comparison of oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol lavage for colonoscopy preparation. World J Gastroenterol 2005; 11(47): 7486-7493
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v11/i47/7486.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v11.i47.7486