Adequate bowel preparation is crucial for effective colonoscopy, especially in elderly patients who face a high risk of inadequate preparation. This study develops and validates a machine learning model to predict bowel preparation adequacy in elderly patients before colonoscopy.

The study adhered to the TRIPOD AI guidelines. Clinical data from 471 elderly patients collected between February and December 2023 were utilized for developing and internally validating the model, while 221 patients' data from March to June 2024 were used for external validation. The Boruta algorithm was applied for feature selection. Models including logistic regression, light gradient boosting machines, support vector machines (SVM), decision trees, random forests, and extreme gradient boosting were evaluated using metrics such as AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. The SHAP algorithm helped rank feature importance. A web-based application was developed using the Streamlit framework to enhance clinical usability.

The Boruta algorithm identified 7 key features. The SVM model excelled with an AUC of 0.895 (95% CI: 0.822-0.969), and high accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. In external validation, the SVM model maintained robust performance with an AUC of 0.889. The SHAP algorithm further explained the contribution of each feature to model predictions.

The study developed an interpretable and practical machine learning model for predicting bowel preparation adequacy in elderly patients, facilitating early interventions to improve outcomes and reduce resource wastage.

As the target of therapy in Ulcerative colitis (UC) has changed from symptomatic relief to mucosal healing, endoscopic visualization is mandatory. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) may serve as a less invasive and more tolerable alternative to standard colonoscopy (SC) for the monitoring of UC.

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, adverse events and tolerability for CCE compared to SC.

Systematic review.

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science.

Search results were imported into Covidence and screened. Included studies underwent risk of bias assessment using Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS), and relevant data, including completeness of the procedure, type of bowel preparation and adverse events, was extracted. Pooled estimates of diagnostic accuracy were calculated from the studies providing the necessary data.

Out of 2804 articles, six studies were eligible for inclusion. Three provided the necessary data to calculate pooled estimates of diagnostic accuracy in recognizing mucosal inflammation: pooled sensitivity of 93%, specificity of 68.8%, positive predictive value of 89.4%, and negative predictive value of 78.6%. The adverse events, such as nausea and abdominal distension, were predominantly related to bowel preparation regimens.

CCE has the potential for monitoring UC. However, the specificity and NPV must be improved. Bowel preparation regimens must be optimized to improve patient experience and the effectiveness of CCE.

Prospero ID CRD42023450210.

This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.

Bowel cleansing is a key element for a quality colonoscopy. Despite recent advances, not all predictors of successful cleansing are fully known. This post hoc analysis of an RCT aims to explore gender differences in bowel cleansing quality.

The "OVER" trial was a multicenter phase-4 RCT including 478 patients randomized 1:1 to receive split-dose 1L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (PEG+ASC) or 4L-PEG. In this post hoc analysis, multivariable logistic regression models were designed to assess predictors of cleansing success (CS) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) by gender.

Of the 478 randomized patients, 50.2% were males and 49.8% females.Overall, CS was comparable between females and males (87.1% vs 88.4, P = 0 .6), whereas CS in the right (95.7% vs 90.9, P = 0.049) and transverse colon (98.6% vs 93.9, P =0.011) was significantly higher in females.At multivariable regression analysis for CS outpatient setting (OR = 5.558) and higher withdrawal time (OR = 1.294) were independently associated with CS in females, whereas screening/surveillance indication (OR = 6.776) was independently associated with CS in males.At multivariable regression analysis for ADR, running time <5 hours (OR = 3.014) and higher withdrawal time (OR = 1.250) were independently associated with ADR in females, whereas older age (OR = 1.040) and higher withdrawal time (OR = 1.093) were independently associated with ADR in males.

This study showed different results in bowel preparation quality and different predictors of CS and ADR by gender. These findings suggest the need for further research to explore gender-specific approaches for bowel preparation.

This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.

Quality markers and patient experience are being implemented to ensure standardization of practice across gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy procedures. The set benchmarks ensure high quality procedures are delivered and linked to measurable outcomes.There has been an increase in the demand for small-bowel endoscopy. In 2019, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) embarked on setting performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy. This included major (key) and minor performance indicators for both small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) and device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE). These suggested quality indicators cover all procedure domains, from patient selection and preparation, to intraprocedural aspects such as pathology identification, appropriate management, the patient experience, and post-procedure complications. Since 2019, there has been an increase in published studies looking at different aspects of small-bowel endoscopy, including real-world data. This paper provides an update on the 2019 performance measures, considering the latest literature.

Colon hydrotherapy devices serve as a physiotherapeutic modality to manage colonic disorders by promoting intestinal peristalsis and enhancing gastrointestinal functionality. This study aims to assess and compare the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of two remedial strategies for inadequate bowel preparation: colon hydrotherapy device enema and oral polyethylene glycol electrolyte powder.

A retrospective analysis was performed on 109 patients who failed to adequately prepare for colonoscopy. These patients received remedial bowel preparation on the same day as their procedure, with 55 undergoing colon hydrotherapy enema and 54 receiving oral polyethylene glycol electrolyte powder. Patient satisfaction and tolerance were evaluated through telephone follow-up. Key metrics included the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores, preparation time, incidence of adverse reactions, and patient tolerance and satisfaction.

No significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics between groups (P >  0.05). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores for the entire colon were 7 (3) in the hydrotherapy group and 6.5 (1) in the oral group (z =  -2.075, P =  0.038). Notably, scores for the left colon were significantly higher in the hydrotherapy group [3 (1) vs. 2 (0), z =  -5.586, P <  0.001]. The hydrotherapy group also exhibited a shorter preparation time [80 (20) min vs. 92.5 (20) min, z =  -3.961, P <  0.001] and a lower incidence of adverse effects (36.4% vs. 88.9%, χ² =  32.035, P <  0.001). Patient satisfaction metrics, including re-selection rates and tolerance of side effects, were significantly higher in the hydrotherapy group.

The colon hydrotherapy device enema is an effective, efficient, and well-tolerated method for bowel cleansing, demonstrating a low incidence of adverse events. It is recommended as an effective and safe remedial therapy for patients with inadequate bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy.

Background: This study aims to objectively evaluate the overall quality of colonoscopies using a specially trained deep learning-based semantic segmentation neural network. This represents a modern and valuable approach for the analysis of colonoscopy frames. Methods: We collected thousands of colonoscopy frames extracted from a set of video colonoscopy files. A color-based image processing method was used to extract color features from specific regions of each colonoscopy frame, namely, the intestinal mucosa, residues, artifacts, and lumen. With these features, we automatically annotated all the colonoscopy frames and then selected the best of them to train a semantic segmentation network. This trained network was used to classify the four region types in a different set of test colonoscopy frames and extract pixel statistics that are relevant to quality evaluation. The test colonoscopies were also evaluated by colonoscopy experts using the Boston scale. Results: The deep learning semantic segmentation method obtained good results, in terms of classifying the four key regions in colonoscopy frames, and produced pixel statistics that are efficient in terms of objective quality assessment. The Spearman correlation results were as follows: BBPS vs. pixel scores: 0.69; BBPS vs. mucosa pixel percentage: 0.63; BBPS vs. residue pixel percentage: -0.47; BBPS vs. Artifact Pixel Percentage: -0.65. The agreement analysis using Cohen's Kappa yielded a value of 0.28. The colonoscopy evaluation based on the extracted pixel statistics showed a fair level of compatibility with the experts' evaluations. Conclusions: Our proposed deep learning semantic segmentation approach is shown to be a promising tool for evaluating the overall quality of colonoscopies and goes beyond the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale in terms of assessing colonoscopy quality. In particular, while the Boston scale focuses solely on the amount of residual content, our method can identify and quantify the percentage of colonic mucosa, residues, and artifacts, providing a more comprehensive and objective evaluation.

This study aimed to compare the bowel cleansing efficacy, adverse reactions, and patient compliance of two low-volume bowel preparation regimens, sodium picosulfate (PICO) and 2 L polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (2 L PEG-ELS).

This single-center, prospective observational trial was conducted at the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Center of The Third People's Hospital of Chengdu between May and October 2023. Patients undergoing colonoscopy were enrolled, with the primary outcome being the rate of adequate bowel cleansing, as assessed by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) with three segments scoring ≥ 2. Secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate, adverse reactions, patient compliance, and the BBPS total and segment scores.

A total of 5423 patients were included, divided into the PICO group (n = 739) and the 2 L PEG-ELS group (n = 4684) based on the bowel preparation regimen they chose. There were no statistically significant differences between the PICO and 2 L PEG-ELS groups in adequate bowel cleansing rate (92.2% vs. 91.3%, P = 0.437) and polyp detection rate (42.2% vs. 45.5%, P = 0.096). However, the PICO group achieved a better performance in the BBPS scores of the total [(6.90 ± 1.19) vs. (6.81 ± 1.14), P = 0.016] and the right colon [(2.15 ± 0.53) vs. (2.11 ± 0.51), P = 0.005] compared to the 2 L PEG-ELS group. In terms of adverse reactions, the 2 L PEG-ELS group reported more nausea (11.7% vs. 5.7%, P < 0.001) and the PICO group reported more sleep disturbances (24.5% vs. 14.6%, P < 0.001), but the willingness to repeat the procedure with the same regimen was similar high in the 2 L PEG-ELS and PICO groups (99% vs. 99.2%, P = 0.588).

In this prospective observational study, both PICO and 2 L PEG-ELS are safe and effective options for bowel cleansing in the Chinese population.

Poor bowel preparation has been a great problem of endoscopists for a long time. Low-residue diet (LRD) is often recommended on the day before colonoscopy. However, the quality of bowel preparation with LRD alone is suboptimal. The aim of our study was to examine whether patients who consumed LRD with oral nutritional supplements (ONSs) had higher quality of bowel preparation than patients who consumed LRD alone before colonoscopy.

An endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial was conducted in inpatients who scheduled for colonoscopy with sedation. Patients were randomized to the non-ONS group and the ONS group. The primary outcomes were the rates of adequate bowel preparation measured by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS) and the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS). The secondary outcomes were the adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR), intubation time, withdrawal time and rates of adverse events.

In both groups, 100 patients were analyzed. The rates of adequate bowel preparation measured by the BBPS and OBPS and PDR were significantly higher in the ONS group than in the non-ONS group (all P < 0.05). However, no significant differences were observed in the CEBuS scores, ADR, intubation time and rates of adverse events between the two groups (all P > 0.05). The withdrawal time was longer in the non-ONS group than the in the ONS group (P < 0.05).

LRD with ONSs helps increase the quality of bowel preparation. To help with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, further studies are warrant.

[Chinese Clinical Trial Registry], [ChiCTR2400091660], [31/10/2024], [Retrospectively registered].

Opinions about the impact of bowel preparation on the gut microbiota are divided. This study investigated the effects of different regimens on the gut microbiota post-bowel preparation and the differences in responses across different age groups.

This single-center, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial included 194 patients. Patients were categorized into two groups: one group receiving polyethylene glycol (n = 108) and one receiving sodium picosulfate (n = 86) for bowel preparation. Fecal samples were collected at baseline and on days 7 and 14 post-bowel preparation. The microbiota's diversity and composition were analyzed using 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing, followed by comparative analyses.

The gut microbiota's abundance and diversity in patients significantly decreased post-bowel preparation, which did not recover to the level of pre-bowel preparation on Day 14. When comparing different regimens, the polyethylene glycol and sodium picosulfate groups recovered faster in richness and diversity, respectively. Patients aged < 65 years had higher richness and diversity of the gut microbiota, whereas the microbiota structure in those aged ≥ 65 years returned to the baseline state faster. The structure of beta diversity is significantly altered and did not return in the short term. However, in the elderly population aged ≥ 65 years, it can rebound quickly. This study also identified a number of significantly altered bacterial genera.

Following the use of different bowel preparation regimens, the gut microbiota recovers in diverse ways, with older people over 65 experiencing a faster recovery of the microbial structure.

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) serves as a primary quality metric in colonoscopy. Various computer-aided detection (CADe) tools have emerged, yielding diverse impacts on ADR across different demographic cohorts. This study aims to evaluate a new CADe system in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

This is an Italian multicenter randomized control trial (RCT) that included patients aged 40-85 scheduled for screening, surveillance or diagnostic colonoscopy randomly assigned to CADe or standard colonoscopy (SC). Patients with a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale < 2 in any segment were excluded. The primary outcome was ADR in both groups. Secondary outcomes included adenoma per colonoscopy (APC), polyp per colonoscopy (PPC) and sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR).

1228 patients were enrolled of whom 70 were excluded for inadequate bowel cleansing or missed cecal intubation. Therefore, 1158 subjects (578 CADe vs 580 SC) were included in the final analysis. ADR was significantly higher in CADe than in the control group (50.2 % vs 40.5 %, p = 0.001). CADe also significantly increased PPC and APC (1.64 ± 2.03 vs 1.23 ± 1.72, p < 0.001; 1.16 ± 1.82 vs 0.80 ± 1.46 p < 0.001; respectively). No significant differences were found in SSLDR between CADe and SC (12.1 % vs 11.0 %, p = 0.631).

The results of this RCT indicate that AI-assisted colonoscopy significantly improved ADR in a non-selected population undergoing colonoscopy without causing any significant delay in procedure time or increasing the detection of nonneoplastic lesions. (Ethical committee approval: NCT05862948).

The quality of a colonoscopy is heavily reliant on the effectiveness of bowel cleansing. Various cleansing solutions are currently available, but their comparative efficacy remains uncertain. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to compare the performance of different bowel preparations for colonoscopy.

MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of different bowel preparations. The primary outcome was cleansing success (CS), and the secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR).

On network meta-analysis for CS (22 RCTs, 7179 patients, 14 bowel preparations), 2 L PEG + simethicone (RR = 1.25 [95 %CI = 1.13-1.37]), 2 L PEG + lactulose (RR = 1.22 [95 %CI = 1.10-1.38]) and 1 L PEG + ascorbate (ASC) (RR = 1.03 [95 %CI = 1.01-1.06]) were significantly superior to 2 L PEG + ASC. Overall, 2 L PEG + lactulose resulted as the best product (SUCRA 0.94), followed by 2 L PEG + simethicone (SUCRA 0.93). On network meta-analysis for ADR (17 RCTs, 6639 patients, 11 bowel preparations), only 2 L PEG + simethicone (RR = 1.60 [95 %CI = 1.05-2.43]) resulted significantly superior to 2 L PEG + ASC.

2 L PEG + simethicone, 2 L PEG + lactulose, and 1 L PEG + ASC seemed to provide high rates of CS, albeit only 2 L PEG + simethicone was associated with significantly higher ADR. Consequently, these products should be preferred for bowel preparation of colonoscopy. Further randomized studies with adequate sample sizes are needed for a more accurate comparison of these products on ADR.

To assess the effectiveness and safety of auricular acupressure in reducing the incidence of adverse reactions(ADRs) during the bowel preparation.

This was a prospective, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial implemented at Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine. Between October 2022 and February 2023, 190 hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly assigned to the intervention and control groups in a 1:1 ratio. The intervention group received auricular acupressure during bowel preparation, whereas the control group received no additional treatment. Analyses were conducted using the intention-to-treat method. Intervention effects were evaluated by comparing outcomes between the two groups.

The overall incidence of ADRs to bowel preparation in the intervention group (37/95 = 37.89 %) was lower than that in the control group (59/95 = 62.11 %, P < 0.05). Compared with control group, the incidence of nausea in the intervention group decreased by 15.79 %(95%CI 0.03-0.19, P = 0.018), whereas no significant difference was observed in the incidence of abdominal distension(P > 0.05). Regarding the comparison of the severity of the ADRs, the overall score of ADRs and the scores for nausea and abdominal distension in the intervention group were statistically lower than those in the control group (all P < 0.05). No auricular acupressure-related adverse effect was observed.

Auricular acupressure can significantly decrease the incidence of ADRs to colonoscopic bowel preparation in patients and alleviate the severity of nausea and bloating symptoms, which is a safe, simple, and effective method.

ChiCTR, no. ChiCTR2200061742; Registered July 2, 2022. URL: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showprojEN.html?proj=167796.

Polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS) is the standard for bowel preparation but often suffers from poor patient compliance and tolerability due to its high-volume requirement. This prospective, single-blinded, non-inferiority, randomized control trial aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of a lactulose-based regimen as an alternative for bowel preparation.

Two hundred nine patients were randomly allocated to receive either a combination regimen consisting of 133.4 g lactulose in 200 mL, 800 mL carbohydrate-containing clear liquid, 2L additional water, and 5 g simethicone (n = 104) or 3L PEG-ELS with 5 g simethicone (n = 105), both administered in a split-dose format. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate bowel preparation, measured by the Boston bowel preparation score (BBPS). Adequate bowel preparation was defined as a BBPS score of 2 or 3 in all colon segments. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of high-quality bowel preparation (defining as a total BBPS score of 8 or 9), polyp detection rate (defining as the percentage of procedures where at least one polyp was detected), willingness to repeat the bowel preparation, adverse events, and changes in blood glucose and electrolyte levels.

The rate of adequate bowel preparation (96.2% vs. 97.1%, p = 0.691), the percentage of high-quality preparation (62.5% vs. 66.7%, p = 0.529), average total BBPS scores (p = 0.607), polyp detection rates (66.3% vs. 77.1%, p = 0.083), and tolerability and acceptability outcomes, including satisfaction (p = 0.729) and willingness to repeat preparation (p = 0.744), were not statistically different between the two arms. Adverse events and changes in blood glucose and electrolytes showed no significant differences (all p > 0.05).

The combination of oral lactulose and carbohydrate-containing clear fluids was non-inferior to 3L PEG-ELS for bowel preparation adequacy and polyp detection, without statistically significant differences in terms of tolerability and safety.

Despite lower patient adherence, the overnight split-dose (SD) intestinal preparation regimen is currently recommended for early morning colonoscopies. Using low-volume preparation, we compared performance of a "day before late" (DBL) regimen, with the whole preparation taken between 8.30 pm and midnight on the day before the endoscopic procedure vs the overnight SD regimen for colonoscopies scheduled between 8 am and 10 am.

Patients were randomized to the DBL group (n = 162) or SD group (n = 158). The SD group took the second dose 5 hours before colonoscopy. Successful bowel cleansing, defined as an overall Boston Bowel Preparation Score ≥ 3, safety, compliance and tolerability were assessed in the two groups.

The DBL regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority compared with the SD regimen in terms of successful bowel cleansing (DBL, 88.2 % vs SD, 98.1%, P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis on colonoscopies before 9 am showed BBPS ≥ 3 rates of 94.6% and 100% in the DBL and SD groups, respectively P = 0.126). The two regimens showed similar compliance and tolerability. Compared with SD patients (25.5%), a lower proportion of DBL patients (13.9%) reported fear of incontinence during the journey to the hospital ( P = 0.01).

Albeit more tolerable, the DBL regimen was less effective than the SD regimen with regard to successful bowel cleansing for colonoscopies between 8 am and 10 am. Subgroup analysis on colonoscopies scheduled before 9 am showed that the two regimens have similar efficacy, suggesting that the DBL regimen may be a valuable alternative to the SD regimen for very early morning colonoscopies.

Adequate bowel preparation is indispensable for high-quality colonoscopy. We have developed an ultralow-volume (500 mL) polyethylene glycol (PEG) combined with other laxatives (sennoside, sodium picosulfate, and lactulose) and applied this regimen clinically to all patients with colonoscopy for 3 decades. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of this ultralow-volume bowel preparation regimen.

This single-center, retrospective study analyzed data from consecutive outpatients who underwent colonoscopy between January 2022 and December 2022. All the patients took sennoside (24 mg) two nights before, sodium picosulfate (75 mg) one night before, and 500 mL of PEG with lactulose (58.5 g) on the day of examination. Cleaning efficacy was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Adequate bowel preparation was defined as a total BBPS score ≥6, with all colon segments scoring ≥2.

Out of 862 patients with colonoscopy, 773 were eligible for this study, and the median age was 66 years. The adequate bowel preparation rate was 91.8% (710/773). Notably, the BBPS full score "9" was observed in 50.5% (390/773). The median cecal intubation time and examination time were 8 and 20 min, respectively. Only 3 patients vomited as a side effect. In the multivariate analysis, age ≥70 years, diabetes mellitus, and diverticula were significantly independent risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation.

Our established ultralow-volume (500 mL) PEG is safe and useful as a bowel preparation method.

Bowel preparation represents a significant issue to high-quality colonoscopy. Oral mannitol requires a single dose, is of low volume, and has a pleasant taste and rapid action.

This SATISFACTION study compared single-dose (same day) oral mannitol 100 g/750 mL with standard split-dose PEG-ASC2 L (MoviPrep®).

The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with adequate bowel cleansing. Secondary endpoints included efficacy (adenoma detection rate, caecal intubation rate, time of evacuation), safety (intestinal gases concentration, haemato-chemical parameters, adverse events), and patient satisfaction.

The study included 703 patients (352 treated with mannitol and 351 with PEG-ASC). Mannitol was not inferior to PEG-ASC for the primary endpoint (91.1 % and 95.5 %, respectively; p-value for the non-inferiority =0.0131). There was no significant difference for secondary efficacy endpoints. The acceptability profile was significantly better in the mannitol group for ease of use, taste, and willingness to reuse (p < 0.0001 for all). The concentration of intestinal gases (H2, CH4) was similar between groups and well below those potentially critical.

The SATISFACTION study indicated that low-volume, single-dose mannitol may satisfy an unmet clinical need since it was more acceptable to the patient and not inferior to the split-dose PEG-ASC for bowel cleansing efficacy.

There is robust evidence to indicate a strong correlation between the bowel preparation status and adenoma detection rate (ADR), which directly impacts the incidence and mortality rate of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Therefore, improving bowel preparation has been of increasing interest. In Japan, commercially available bowel preparation agents include polyethylene glycol, oral sodium sulfate, sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate, magnesium citrate, and oral sodium phosphate; each has its own strengths and limitations. The timing of administration can also influence the efficacy of bowel preparation and patient tolerability. Furthermore, meta-analyses have suggested predictive factors for inadequate bowel preparation. A detailed understanding of these factors could contribute to reducing the need for repeat colonoscopy within 1 year, as recommended for patients with inadequate bowel preparation. Recent advancements, such as oral sulfate tablets, present promising alternatives with higher patient satisfaction and ADRs than traditional methods. Achieving optimal bowel preparation requires enhanced instructions, individualized regimens, and a comprehensive understanding of patient backgrounds and the characteristics of various bowel preparation agents. This article provides a concise overview of the current status and advancements in bowel preparation for enhancing the quality and safety of colonoscopy.

The APAGE Position Statements aimed to provide guidance to healthcare practitioners on clinical practices aligned with climate sustainability.

A taskforce convened by APAGE proposed provisional statements. Twenty-two gastroenterologists from the Asian Pacific region participated in online voting and consensus was assessed through an anonymized and iterative Delphi process.

There were five sections that addressed the rationale for climate action, the importance of adopting principles of waste management, clinical practice, gastrointestinal endoscopy, and issues related to advocacy and research. Sixteen statements achieved consensus and included the following: 1. APAGE recommends adopting prompt measures to reduce the carbon footprint of clinical practice due to the importance of climate action and its health cobenefits. 5. APAGE recommends adherence to professional clinical guidelines to optimize clinical care delivery in gastroenterology and hepatology to avoid the environmental impact of unnecessary procedures and tests. 8. APAGE recommends an emphasis on health promotion, disease prevention, and appropriate screening and surveillance, when resources are available, to reduce the environmental impact of managing more advanced diseases that require more intensive resources. 12. APAGE recommends that technological advances in endoscopic imaging and artificial intelligence, when available, be used to improve the precision of endoscopic diagnosis to reduce the risk of missed lesions and need for unnecessary biopsies. 13. APAGE recommends against the routine use of single-use endoscopes.

The position statements provide guidance to healthcare practitioners on clinical practices in gastroenterology, hepatology, and endoscopy that promote climate sustainability.

Colorectal non-polypoid lesions (NPLs) are flat, hard-to-detect, and mainly right-sided lesions. We aimed to assess the prevalence and endoscopic features of NPL lesions in a large cohort of screening patients in Northern Italy.

Fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-positive subjects between 50 and 69 years old who had undergone at least a screening colonoscopy from March 2005 to December 2017 at the Endoscopy Unit of Ferrara were included. We selected only non-diminutive (>5 mm) and neoplastic polyps (i.e., adenomas, serrated adenomas, and carcinomas). Patients' demographics and polyps' endoscopic-histopathological data were collected. Categorical variables were compared using the Pearson's χ2 test and Fisher's exact test, while odd ratios and confidence intervals were estimated with univariate analysis.

A total of 6,676 FIT-positive subjects underwent 7,616 colonoscopies during the study period. Total lesions were 3,231, of which 133 were NPLs and among these 123 were neoplastic. The prevalence of NPLs among total lesions was 4.1%, while prevalence of neoplastic NPLs among total neoplastic lesions was 4.6%. The prevalence of NPLs and neoplastic NPLs among total colonoscopies was 1.7% and 1.6%, respectively. Neoplastic NPLs were more frequent between 60 and 64 years old (p = 0.03) and associated with other colonic polyps in subjects older than 60 years (p = 0.016). Cancerized NPLs were more likely in younger patients (50-59 years old, p = 0.04).

Prevalence of NPLs is low among the screening population, but NPLs are frequently associated with other colorectal polyps in patients older than 60 years and carry a higher risk of cancer in patients younger than 60 years old.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy has been widely used in the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal diseases. A great many of studies on gastrointestinal endoscopy have been done.

To analyze the characteristics of top 100 cited articles on gastrointestinal endoscopy.

A bibliometric analysis was conducted. The publications and their features were extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection, Science Citation Index-Expanded database. Excel, Web of Science database and SPSS software were used to perform the statistical description and analysis. VOSviewer software and MapChart were responsible for the visualizations.

The top 100 cited articles were published between 1976 and 2022. The guidelines (52%) and clinical trials (37%) are the main article types, and average publication year of the guidelines is much later than that of the clinical trials (2015 vs 1998). Among the clinical trials, diagnostic study (27.0%), cohort study (21.6%), case series (13.5%) and cross-sectional study (10.8%) account for a large proportion. Average citations of different study types and designs of the enrolled studies are of no significant differences. Most of the 100 articles were published by European authors and recorded by the endoscopic journals (65%). Top journals in medicine, such as the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA, also reported studies in this field. The hot spots of involved diseases include neoplasm or cancer-related diseases, inflammatory diseases, obstructive diseases, gastrointestinal hemorrhage and ulcer. Endoscopic surgery, endoscopic therapy and stent placement are frequently studied.

Our research contributes to delineating the field and identifying the characteristics of the most highly cited articles. It is noteworthy that there is a significantly smaller number of clinical trials included compared to guidelines, indicating potential areas for future high-quality clinical trials.

The term "gut microbiota" primarily refers to the ecological community of various microorganisms in the gut, which constitutes the largest microbial community in the human body. Although adequate bowel preparation can improve the results of colonoscopy, it may interfere with the gut microbiota. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy can lead to transient changes in the gut microbiota, potentially affecting an individual's health, especially in vulnerable populations, such as patients with inflammatory bowel disease. However, measures such as oral probiotics may ameliorate these adverse effects. We focused on the bowel preparation-induced changes in the gut microbiota and host health status, hypothesized the factors influencing these changes, and attempted to identify measures that may reduce dysbiosis, thereby providing more information for individualized bowel preparation for colonoscopy in the future.

The quality of bowel preparation is an important factor in the success of colonoscopy. However, multiple influencing factors that function together can lead to inadequate bowel preparation. The main objective of this study was to explore the specific factors that affect the quality of bowel preparation, with the goal of deriving and validating a predictive model for inadequate bowel preparation in Chinese outpatients. A prospective observational study. We conducted a prospective study in a tertiary hospital in Zhejiang Province that included elective colonoscopy outpatients treated between December 15, 2022 and August 12, 2023. Clinical data related to the patient characteristics and patient bowel preparation were collected to analyze the risk factors of inadequate bowel preparation in outpatients. The quality of bowel preparation was assessed by using the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS). Inadequate bowel preparation was defined as a total BBPS score of < 6 or any segment score of < 2. The predictive model was constructed based on multivariate logistic regression, and the discrimination and calibration of the prediction model were evaluated via internal and external validation; additionally, a clinical decision curve was drawn to evaluate the clinical utility of the model. A total of 1314 patients were included from December 15, 2022 through May 31, 2023 (derivation cohort, n = 1035) and from June 1 through August 12, 2023 (external validation cohort, n = 279). Inadequate bowel preparation occurred in 260 of 1035 patients in the derivation cohort (25.1%). Multivariate analysis identified that male sex (OR = 1.690, 95% CI: 1.242-2.300), diabetes (OR = 1.769, 95% CI: 1.059-2.954), constipation (OR = 2.375, 95% CI: 1.560-3.617), history of colorectal surgery (OR = 2.915, 95% CI: 1.455-5.840), a high fiber diet used at 24 h before examination (OR = 2.662, 95% CI: 1.636-4.334) and the time interval from the end of the bowel preparation to the start of the colonoscopy (PC) >5 h (OR = 2.471, 95% CI: 1.814-3.366) were independent risk factors. We derived a model to identify patients with inadequate cleansing by using data from patients in the derivation cohort and tested it in the validation cohort. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.704 (95% CI: 0.667-0.741), with a calibration value of p = 0.632 in the derivation cohort. Bootstrap cross-validation showed a good model calibration condition. For the validation cohort, the AUC was 0.704 (95% CI: 0.628-0.779), and the calibration value was p = 0.376. We identified the influencing factors of outpatient bowel cleansing that are associated with patient clinical characteristics and bowel preparation-related behaviors. A model was constructed and validated to identify patients who were at high risk of inadequate bowel preparation by using six simple variables, which included male sex, diabetes, constipation, history of colorectal surgery, a high fiber diet used at 24 h prior to examination, and PC > 5 h. The clinical decision curve showed that the constructed prediction model has some clinical utility based on results from the derivation cohort and validation cohort.

Colonoscopy is the standard diagnostic method for colorectal cancer. Patients usually receive written and verbal instructions for bowel preparation (BP) before the procedure. Failure to understand the importance of BP can lead to inadequate BP in 25%-30% of patients. The quality of BP impacts the success of colonoscopy in diagnostic yield and adenoma detection. We developed the "ColonClean" mobile health (mHealth) app for Android devices. It incorporates visual representations of dietary guidelines, steps for using bowel cleansing agents, and observations of the last bowel movement. We used the Technology Acceptance Model to investigate whether the use of the ColonClean mHealth app can improve users' attitudes and behaviors toward BP.

This study aims to validate the effectiveness of the ColonClean app in enhancing user behavior and improving BP, providing safe and cost-effective outpatient colonoscopy guidance.

This study uses a structured questionnaire to assess perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and users' attitudes and behaviors toward BP regarding the ColonClean mHealth app. A total of 40 outpatients who were physically and mentally healthy and proficient in Chinese were randomly chosen for this study. The data were analyzed using SPSS 25.0, and we used Pearson product-moment correlation and simple regression analysis to predict the perception of ColonClean.

The results showed that 75% (30/40) of participants achieved an "excellent" or "good" level of BP according to the Aronchick Bowel Preparation Scale. Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of the ColonClean mHealth app were positively correlated with users' attitudes and behaviors (P<.05).

The ColonClean mHealth app serves as an educational reference and enhances the effectiveness of BP. Users expressed their willingness to use the app again in the future and recommend it to family and friends, highlighting its effectiveness as an educational guide for BP.

A significant proportion of patients with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis will ultimately necessitate surgical interventions, despite advances in diagnosis, medical therapy, and endoscopic interventions. These surgeries lead to substantial alterations in bowel anatomy. The present review aims to emphasize the key role of conducting a comprehensive endoscopic evaluation of both anatomic landmarks and endoscopic features for accurate clinical interpretation, thereby impacting decisions regarding medical or endoscopic interventions.

The aim of this study was to examine the effect of the nursing process applied by using standard nursing terminologies on colonoscopy preparation of outpatients on bowel cleansing.

The sample of the prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled study consisted of 116 patients (intervention n = 57, control n = 59). Both groups were interviewed face to face one week before the procedure day, nursing diagnoses were determined individually, and nursing outcome scales were employed as a baseline assessment. In the intervention group, the nursing process was applied to the patients with standard nursing terminology, training was given with an information booklet, and then the preparation instructions were reminded through telephone calls, text messages and instant messages. The adequacy of bowel cleansing was evaluated by the endoscopist using Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS) who blindly performed the procedure for both groups.

The mean BBPS score of the intervention group was 7.00 ± 1.43, and the control group was 4.16 ± 2.15. A significant difference found between the rates of adequate preparation in the intervention group (82.5%) and in the control group (16.9%) (P < .05). A significant difference was found after the intervention in terms of nursing outcome scales (P < .05).

According to the study adequate preparation for the colonoscopy procedure can be achieved by applying the nursing process based on NANDA-I, NOC and NIC.

The noncompliance rate with routine or surveillance colonoscopies is high, and the underlying reasons remain unverified among Asian patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). This study aimed to examine the perceptions of Asian patients with IBD regarding bowel preparation and colonoscopy and their attitudes toward the recommended intervals for colonoscopies.

Using data from one medical center between July 2020 and May 2022, we analyzed the perceptions of bowel preparation and colonoscopy and attitudes toward examination intervals among 94 patients with IBD (Crohn's disease, 41; ulcerative colitis, 53). The patients' perceptions of the four components associated with the colonoscopy procedure (embarrassment, pain, use of bowel-cleansing agents, and stress) were assessed via a questionnaire. Patients were asked to indicate the frequency at which they had scheduled colonoscopy and the frequency at which they desired to undergo the procedure.

"Bowel cleansing" and "pain" received the highest dissatisfaction rate. "Drink too much" was the greatest burden in bowel preparation. Younger age and younger age at diagnosis were associated with a greater burden of bowel preparation and pain. Younger patients and those diagnosed at an earlier age tended to prefer longer examination intervals.

Bowel cleansing and abdominal pain were the most uncomfortable aspects associated with colonoscopy, especially when performed without sedation, among Asian patients with IBD. Younger patients and those with early diagnoses preferred longer examination intervals. Our findings can promote colonoscopy adherence and facilitate early detection of major complications in patients at high risk and those with long-term IBD.

Colonoscopy is widely used as a diagnostic and preventive procedure for colorectal diseases. The most recent guidelines advocate the use of a low-residue diet (LRD) for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. LRD duration varies considerably, with recommended 1-day and multiple-day regimens in clinical practice.

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched multiple databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and analyzed the outcomes using a fixed-effects model.

Six RCTs with 2,469 subjects were included in this study. The rates of adequate bowel preparation for 1-day and >1-day were 87.2% and 87.1%, respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed between the 1-day and >1-day LRD in adequate bowel preparation (odds ratio [OR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.41; p=0.84; I2=0%), polyp detection rate (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76-1.09; p=0.29; I2=16%), adenoma detection rate (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71-1.08; p=0.21; I2=0%), and withdrawal time (mean difference, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.25 to 0.24; p=0.97; I2=63%).

The efficacy of 1-day and multiple-day LRD is comparable in achieving satisfactory bowel preparation, highlighting their similar impact on the detection of polyps and adenomas during colonoscopy.

Suboptimal bowel preparation adversely affects colonoscopy quality, increases healthcare costs, and prolongs waiting time. The primary contributing factors include poor tolerance to the preparation solutions, noncompliance with prescribed instructions, and suboptimal efficacy of the bowel cleansing solution itself.

This review examined the predictive factors associated with suboptimal bowel preparation and discussed interventions aimed at improving bowel cleansing. It also provides evidence-based practical algorithms supplemented by insights from our own clinical experience. Relevant topics were reviewed using resources from the PubMed database.

Although current bowel preparation protocols are effective for the majority of patients, a significant proportion still present challenges for optimal preparation. These patients may benefit from personalized strategies tailored to the specific causes of preparation failure. Conducting a thorough interview is crucial for identifying the reasons for failure, particularly in patients who have previously experienced suboptimal preparation during colonoscopy. In colonoscopy-naïve patients, it is essential to assess the risk of suboptimal preparation. In both cases, interventions should be customized to either address the identified causes in the former group or employ preventive strategies to reduce the likelihood of failure in the latter.

High-quality bowel preparation is paramount for a successful colonoscopy. This study aimed to explore the effect of artificial intelligence-driven smartphone software on the quality of bowel preparation.

Firstly, we utilized 3305 valid liquid dung images collected via mobile phones as training data. the most effective model was employed on mobile phones to evaluate the quality of bowel preparation. Secondly, From May 2023 to September 2023, colonoscopy patients were randomly assigned to two groups - the AI group (n = 116) and the control group (n = 116) - using a randomized, controlled, endoscopist-blinded method. We compared the two groups in terms of Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores, polyp detection rate, adverse reaction rate, and factors related to bowel preparation quality. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who achieved a BBPS ≥6 among those who effectively utilized the smartphone software.

EfficientNetV2 exhibited the highest performance, with an accuracy of 87%, a sensitivity of 83%, and an AUC of 0.86. In the patient validation experiment, the AI group had higher BBPS scores than the control group (6.78 ± 1.41 vs. 5.35 ± 2.01, p = 0.001) and showed an improvement in the detection rate (71.55% vs. 56.90%, p = 0.020) for polyps. Multifactor logistic analysis indicated that compliance with enema solution usage rules (OR: 5.850, 95% confidence interval: 2.022-16.923), total water intake (OR: 1.001, 95% confidence interval: 1.001-1.002), and AI software reminders (OR: 2.316, 95% confidence interval: 1.096-4.893) were independently associated with BBPS scores ≥6.

Compared with traditional methods, the use of artificial intelligence combined with software to send reminders can lead to more accurate assessments of bowel preparation quality and an improved detection rate for polyps, thus demonstrating promising clinical value.

Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC).

This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens.

The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups. The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups.

The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Clinical Research Information Service Identifier: KCT0005017.

Colonoscopy remains the most commonly used colorectal cancer screening test in the United States. A substantial portion of the screening population value the high sensitivity of colonoscopy for precancerous colorectal lesions of all sizes, which allows it to be performed at 10 year intervals in average-risk persons with negative examinations. Emerging evidence supports the eventual endorsement of 15 year intervals for patients with normal examinations. Considerable evidence supports an impact of colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, including a randomized controlled trial of colonoscopy vs. no screening, numerous case-control and cohort studies, an impact of fecal blood testing on cancer incidence, and the impact of one randomized controlled trial of flexible sigmoidoscopy on proximal colon cancer incidence. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for detection of colorectal precancerous lesions, and continues to evolve with regard to sensitivity for precancerous lesions and the effectiveness and safety of precancerous lesion resection. Gains in detection of precancerous lesions have followed from a robust movement to improve colonoscopy quality, and development of non-device techniques such as patient rotation during withdrawal, water exchange colonoscopy, and double examination of one or more colonic segments. Further, development of devices to improve mucosal exposure during withdrawal (e.g. Endocuff Vision, distal cap attachment, and Computer-Aided Quality), and devices that highlight flat lesions (e.g. chromoendoscopy, electronic chromoendoscopy, and Computer-Aided Detection) have created opportunities to achieve very high levels of detection and thereby increase the protective benefits of colonoscopy. Further, colonoscopy resection safety has improved via the widespread use of cold resection for lesions < 10 mm in size, as well as sessile serrated lesions of all sizes. Colonoscopy can be offered to patients as one of multiple options for screening, or as the test of choice for patients with the highest pre-screening probability of cancer and precancerous lesions, or as the first test offered followed by offers of other screening tests if colonoscopy is declined (sequential offers of screening). Sequential offers of screening result in overall adherence to screening similar to offering multiple options, but with a higher fraction of patients undergoing colonoscopy. Given the long-lasting protective effects of colonoscopy and its improving effectiveness and safety, colonoscopy remains a useful option for primary average-risk colorectal cancer screening.

The elapse time between the completion of bowel cleansing and colonoscopy is one of the important factors for proper bowel cleansing. Although several studies have reported that a short time interval resulted in a favorable bowel cleansing, no randomized controlled trial (RCT) has been conducted to determine the effect of the elapse time. Consequently, we performed an RCT to investigate the efficacy of bowel preparation of participants who underwent colonoscopy according to the different time intervals between the completion of bowel preparation and colonoscopy.

In this single-center RCT, study participants were randomized to complete bowel preparation either 2-4 h or 4-8 h before colonoscopy. The primary end-point was successful bowel preparation, rated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).

A total of 504 individuals were included (2-4 h, 255; 4-8 h, 249). The rate of successful bowel preparation in the 2-4 h group showed noninferiority compared with that of the 4-8 h group (97.6% vs. 95.2%; rate difference, 2.5% [-0.8% to 5.7%]; Pfor noninferiority < 0.001, Pfor superiority = 0.136). The rate for perfect cleansing (a BBPS score of 9) was higher in the 2-4 h group (56.5% vs. 39.8%, P < 0.001).

When bowel cleansing was finished 2-4 h before the start of colonoscopy, the overall bowel cleansing was noninferior, and perfect cleansing was superior, compared to that when cleansing was finished 4-8 h before colonoscopy.

Colonoscopy plays a crucial role in the early diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer. Adequate bowel preparation is essential for clear visualization of the colonic mucosa and lesion detection. However, inadequate bowel preparation is common in patients with constipation, and there is no standardized preparation protocol for these patients. This study aimed to explore the effectiveness and tolerability of a pre-colonoscopy combination regimen of linaclotide and polyethylene glycol (PEG).

In this prospective, single-center, randomized controlled trial, 322 participants were divided into two groups: a 3-L PEG + 870-μg linaclotide group (administered as a single dose for 3 days) and a 4-L PEG group. The primary endpoints were the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score and the rate of adequate and excellent bowel preparation. Secondary endpoints were the rates of detection of colonic adenomas and polyps, cecal intubation rates, colonoscopy time, adverse reactions, patient satisfaction, and physician satisfaction.

The study included 319 patients. The 3-L PEG + linaclotide group showed significantly higher rates of adequate and excellent bowel preparation than the 4-L PEG group (89.4% vs 73.6% and 37.5% vs 25.3%, respectively; P < 0.05). The mean BBPS score for the right colon in the 3-L PEG + linaclotide group was significantly higher than that in the 4-L PEG group. There were no significant between-group differences regarding the detection rates of colonic polyps and adenomas (44.4% vs 37.7% and 23.1% vs 20.1%, respectively; P > 0.05). There were no significant between-group differences regarding cecal intubation rates, colonoscopy operation, and withdrawal times. However, patient tolerance and sleep quality were better in the 3-L PEG + linaclotide group.

The combination of 3-L PEG and 870-μg linaclotide, because of its lower volume of intake, can be considered as an alternative bowel preparation regimen for constipated patients undergoing colonoscopy, especially for the elderly.