The importance of colonoscopy bowel preparation for the detection of colorectal lesions and colorectal cancer prevention

Abstract

Background and study aims Colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has reduced CRC incidence and mortality and improved prognosis. Optimal bowel preparation and high-quality endoscopic technique facilitate early CRC detection.

This review provides a narrative on the clinical importance of bowel preparation for colonoscopy and highlights available bowel preparations.

Methods A PubMed search was conducted through June 2019 to identify studies evaluating clinical outcomes, efficacy, safety, and tolerability associated with bowel preparation for CRC screening-related colonoscopy.

Results Selecting the optimal bowel preparation regimen is based on considerations of efficacy, safety, and tolerability, in conjunction with individual patient characteristics and preferences. Available bowel preparations include high-volume (4 L) and low-volume (2 L and 1 L), polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions, sodium sulfate, sodium picosulfate/magnesium oxide plus anhydrous citric acid, sodium phosphate tablets, and the over-the-counter preparations magnesium citrate and PEG-3350. These preparations may be administered as a single dose on the same day or evening before, or as two doses administered the same day or evening before/morning of colonoscopy. Ingesting at least half the bowel preparation on the day of colonoscopy (split-dosing) is associated with higher adequate bowel preparation quality versus evening-before dosing (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.9−3.4).

Conclusions High-quality bowel preparation is integral for optimal CRC screening/surveillance by colonoscopy. Over the last 30 years, patients and providers have gained more options for bowel preparation, including low-volume agents with enhanced tolerability and cleansing quality that are equivalent to 4 L preparations. Split-dosing is preferred for achieving a high-quality preparation.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 04. September 2019

Angenommen: 31. Dezember 2019

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
17. April 2020

• References

• 1 American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures 2019. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2019 https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/all-cancer-facts-figures/cancer-facts-figures-2019.html [Accessed: 2019 July 9]
• 2 Petrelli F, Tomasello G, Borgonovo K. et al. Prognostic survival associated with left-sided vs right-sided colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol 2016; 3: 211-219
• 3 American Cancer Society. Colorectal cancer facts & figures 2017-2019. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2017 https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/colorectal-cancer-facts-and-figures/colorectal-cancer-facts-and-figures-2017-2019.pdf [Accessed: 2017 November 18]
• 4 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN. et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1977-1981
• 5 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, OʼBrien MJ. et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 687-696
• 6 Doubeni CA, Corley DA, Quinn VP. et al. Effectiveness of screening colonoscopy in reducing the risk of death from right and left colon cancer: a large community-based study. Gut 2018; 67: 291-298
• 7 Nishihara R, Wu K, Lochhead P. et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1095-1105
• 8 Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Jansen L. et al. Reduced risk of colorectal cancer up to 10 years after screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2014; 146: 709-717
• 9 Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Arndt V. et al. Protection from right- and left-sided colorectal neoplasms after colonoscopy: population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 89-95
• 10 Singh H, Nugent Z, Demers AA. et al. The reduction in colorectal cancer mortality after colonoscopy varies by site of the cancer. Gastroenterology 2010; 139: 1128-1137
• 11 Baxter NN, Goldwasser MA, Paszat LF. et al. Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150: 1-8
• 12 Burke C. Evolving strategies for the prevention of colorectal cancer. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 13: 2-10
• 13 Simon K. Colorectal cancer development and advances in screening. Clin Interv Aging 2016; 11: 967-976
• 14 Szylberg L, Janiczek M, Popiel A. et al. Serrated polyps and their alternative pathway to the colorectal cancer: a systematic review. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2015; 2015: 1-7
• 15 Brenner H, Jansen L, Ulrich A. et al. Survival of patients with symptom- and screening-detected colorectal cancer. Oncotarget 2016; 7: 44695-44704
• 16 Kahi CJ, Imperiale TF, Juliar BE. et al. Effect of screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 770-775
• 17 Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68: 7-30
• 18 Edwards BK, Ward E, Kohler BA. et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates. Cancer 2010; 116: 544-573
• 19 Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ. et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA 2016; 315: 2564-2575
• 20 Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA. et al. Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2017; 112: 1016-1030
• 21 Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC. et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009 [corrected]. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 739-750
• 22 Wolf AMD, Fontham ETH, Church TR. et al. Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68: 250-281
• 23 Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Colorectal cancer mortality rates in adults aged 20 to 54 years in the United States, 1970-2014. JAMA 2017; 318: 572-574
• 24 Siegel RL, Fedewa SA, Anderson WF. et al. Colorectal cancer incidence patterns in the United States, 1974-2013. J Natl Cancer Inst 2017; 109: 1-6
• 25 Bailey CE, Hu CY, You YN. et al. Increasing disparities in the age-related incidences of colon and rectal cancers in the United States, 1975-2010. JAMA Surg 2015; 150: 17-22
• 26 Klabunde CN. Vital signs: colorectal cancer screening test use--United States, 2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2013; 62: 881-888
• 27 Nayor J, Saltzman JR, Campbell EJ. et al. Impact of physician compliance with colonoscopy surveillance guidelines on interval colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 1263-1270
• 28 Jones RM, Devers KJ, Kuzel AJ. et al. Patient-reported barriers to colorectal cancer screening: a mixed-methods analysis. Am J Prev Med 2010; 38: 508-516
• 29 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 31-53
• 30 Jang JY, Chun HJ. Bowel preparations as quality indicators for colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 2746-2750
• 31 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. et al. Variation of adenoma prevalence by age, sex, race, and colon location in a large population: implications for screening and quality programs. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 11: 172-180
• 32 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1795-1803
• 33 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1298-1306
• 34 Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ. et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 844-857
• 35 Meester RG, Doubeni CA, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I. et al. Variation in adenoma detection rate and the lifetime benefits and cost of colorectal cancer screening: a microsimulation model. JAMA 2015; 313: 2349-2358
• 36 Parmar R, Martel M, Rostom A. et al. Validated scales for colon cleansing: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 197-204
• 37 Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH. et al. A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 52: 346-352
• 38 Rostom A, Jolicoeur E. Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 482-486
• 39 Saltzman JR, Cash B. ASGE Standards of Practice Committe. et al. Bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 781-794
• 40 Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G. et al. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 620-625
• 41 Halphen M, Heresbach D, Gruss HJ. et al. Validation of the Harefield Cleansing Scale: a tool for the evaluation of bowel cleansing quality in both research and clinical practice. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 121-131
• 42 Gerard DP, Foster DB, Raiser MW. et al. Validation of a new bowel preparation scale for measuring colon cleansing for colonoscopy: the Chicago Bowel Preparation Scale. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2013; 4: 1-11
• 43 Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 686-692
• 44 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
• 45 Kazarian ES, Carreira FS, Toribara NW. et al. Colonoscopy completion in a large safety net health care system. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6: 438-442
• 46 Lebwohl B, Kastrinos F, Glick M. et al. The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 1207-1214
• 47 Lebwohl B, Wang TC, Neugut AI. Socioeconomic and other predictors of colonoscopy preparation quality. Dig Dis Sci 2010; 55: 2014-2020
• 48 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
• 49 Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers JJ. et al. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 378-384
• 50 Harewood GC, Sharma VK, de Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 76-79
• 51 Cohen LB. Advances in bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2015; 25: 183-197
• 52 Anderson JC, Baron JA, Ahnen DJ. et al. Factors associated with shorter colonoscopy surveillance intervals for patients with low-risk colorectal adenomas and effects on outcome. Gastroenterology 2017; 152: 1933-1943 e1935
• 53 Hillyer GC, Basch CH, Lebwohl B. et al. Shortened surveillance intervals following suboptimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy: results of a national survey. Int J Colorectal Dis 2013; 28: 73-81
• 54 Hendry PO, Jenkins JT, Diament RH. The impact of poor bowel preparation on colonoscopy: a prospective single centre study of 10,571 colonoscopies. Colorectal Dis 2007; 9: 745-748
• 55 Aslinia F, Uradomo L, Steele A. et al. Quality assessment of colonoscopic cecal intubation: an analysis of 6 years of continuous practice at a university hospital. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 721-731
• 56 Bernstein C, Thorn M, Monsees K. et al. A prospective study of factors that determine cecal intubation time at colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 72-75
• 57 Bowles CJ, Leicester R, Romaya C. et al. 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
• 58 Nelson DB, McQuaid KR, Bond JH. et al. Procedural success and complications of large-scale screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 55: 307-314
• 59 Rex DK, Imperiale TF, Latinovich DR. et al. Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1696-1700
• 60 Kim WH, Cho YJ, Park JY. et al. Factors affecting insertion time and patient discomfort during colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 52: 600-605
• 61 Robertson DJ, Lieberman DA, Winawer SJ. et al. Colorectal cancers soon after colonoscopy: a pooled multicohort analysis. Gut 2014; 63: 949-956
• 62 Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM. et al. Interval cancers after negative colonoscopy: population-based case-control study. Gut 2012; 61: 1576-1582
• 63 le Clercq CM, Bouwens MW, Rondagh EJ. et al. Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers are preventable: a population-based study. Gut 2014; 63: 957-963
• 64 Arain MA, Sawhney M, Sheikh S. et al. CIMP status of interval colon cancers: another piece to the puzzle. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1189-1195
• 65 Samadder NJ, Curtin K, Tuohy TM. et al. Characteristics of missed or interval colorectal cancer and patient survival: a population-based study. Gastroenterology 2014; 146: 950-960
• 66 Singh S, Singh PP, Murad MH. et al. Prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes of interval colorectal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 1375-1389
• 67 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. Gastroenterology 2014; 147: 903-924
• 68 Lasisi F, Rex DK. Improving protection against proximal colon cancer by colonoscopy. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 5: 745-754
• 69 Obuch JC, Pigott CM, Ahnen DJ. Sessile serrated polyps: detection, eradication, and prevention of the evil twin. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 2015; 13: 156-170
• 70 Clark BT, Rustagi T, Laine L. What level of bowel prep quality requires early repeat colonoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of preparation quality on adenoma detection rate. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 1714-1723
• 71 Anderson JC, Butterly LF, Robinson CM. et al. Impact of fair bowel preparation quality on adenoma and serrated polyp detection: data from the New Hampshire colonoscopy registry by using a standardized preparation-quality rating. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 463-470
• 72 Chokshi RV, Hovis CE, Hollander T. et al. Prevalence of missed adenomas in patients with inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 1197-1203
• 73 Hong SN, Sung IK, Kim JH. et al. The effect of the bowel preparation status on the risk of missing polyp and adenoma during screening colonoscopy: a tandem colonoscopic study. Clin Endosc 2012; 45: 404-411
• 74 Sherer EA, Imler TD, Imperiale TF. The effect of colonoscopy preparation quality on adenoma detection rates. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 545-553
• 75 Wong MC, Ching JY, Chan VC. et al. Determinants of bowel preparation quality and its association with adenoma detection: a prospective colonoscopy study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016; 95: e2251
• 76 Guo X, Yang Z, Zhao L. et al. Enhanced instructions improve the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 90-97 e96
• 77 Mamula P, Adler DG, Conway JD. et al. Colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 1201-1209
• 78 Smith SG, von Wagner C, McGregor LM. et al. The influence of health literacy on comprehension of a colonoscopy preparation information leaflet. Dis Colon Rectum 2012; 55: 1074-1080
• 79 Cipolletta L, Rotondano G. Patient-friendly bowel preparation for colonoscopy - another brick in the wall?. Dig Liver Dis 2013; 45: 16-17
• 80 Kilgore TW, Abdinoor AA, Szary NM. et al. Bowel preparation with split-dose polyethylene glycol before colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 1240-1245
• 81 Martel M, Barkun AN, Menard C. et al. Split-dose preparations are superior to day-before bowel cleansing regimens: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2015; 149: 79-88
• 82 Horton N, Garber A, Hasson H. et al. Impact of single- vs. split-dose low-volume bowel preparations on bowel movement kinetics, patient inconvenience, and polyp detection: a prospective trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 1330-1337
• 83 Avalos DJ, Castro FJ, Zuckerman MJ. et al. Bowel preparations administered the morning of colonoscopy provide similar efficacy to a split-dose regimen: a meta analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2017; 52: 859-868
• 84 Seo EH, Kim TO, Park MJ. et al. Optimal preparation-to-colonoscopy interval in split-dose PEG bowel preparation determines satisfactory bowel preparation quality: an observational prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 583-590
• 85 Gandhi K, Tofani C, Sokach C. et al. Patient characteristics associated with quality of colonoscopy preparation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 16: 357-369 e310
• 86 Lee DW, Koo JS, Kang S. et al. Association between bowel habits and quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96: e7319
• 87 Menees SB, Kim HM, Wren P. et al. Patient compliance and suboptimal bowel preparation with split-dose bowel regimen in average-risk screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 811-820
• 88 Chan WK, Saravanan A, Manikam J. et al. Appointment waiting times and education level influence the quality of bowel preparation in adult patients undergoing colonoscopy. BMC Gastroenterol 2011; 11: 86
• 89 Davis TC, Hancock J, Morris J. et al. Impact of health literacy-directed colonoscopy bowel preparation instruction sheet. Am J Health Behav 2017; 41: 301-308
• 90 Harrison NM, Hjelkrem MC. Bowel cleansing before colonoscopy: balancing efficacy, safety, cost and patient tolerance. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 8: 4-12
• 91 Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ, Melton LJ. et al. A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 3186-3194
• 92 Young LE, Sacks NC, Cyr PL. et al. Comparison of claims data on hospitalization rates and repeat procedures in patients receiving a bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. SAGE Open Med 2017; 5: 1-8
• 93 Lichtenstein GR, Cohen LB, Uribarri J. Review article: Bowel preparation for colonoscopy – the importance of adequate hydration. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007; 26: 633-641
• 94 Bucci C, Rotondano G, Hassan C. et al. Optimal bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: split the dose! A series of meta-analyses of controlled studies. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 566-576 e562
• 95 Siddiqui AA, Yang K, Spechler SJ. et al. Duration of the interval between the completion of bowel preparation and the start of colonoscopy predicts bowel-preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 700-706
• 96 Rex DK, DiPalma JA, McGowan J. et al. A comparison of oral sulfate solution with sodium picosulfate: magnesium citrate in split doses as bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 1113-1123
• 97 Martens P, Bisschops R. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: efficacy, tolerability and safety. Acta Gastroenterol Belg 2014; 77: 249-255
• 98 Sharara AI, Abou Mrad RR. The modern bowel preparation in colonoscopy. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2013; 42: 577-598
• 99 GoLYTELY (polyethylene glycol 3350 and electrolytes oral solution) [package insert]. Braintree, MA: Braintree Laboratories, Inc.; 2013
• 100 NuLYTELY (polyethylene glycol 3350, sodium chloride, sodium bicarbonate and potassium chloride for oral solution) [package insert]. Braintree, MA: Braintree Laboratories, Inc.; 2013
• 101 MoviPrep (polyethylene glycol 3350, sodium sulfate, sodium chloride, potassium chloride, sodium ascorbate, and ascorbic acid for oral solution) [package insert]. Bridgewater, NJ: Salix Pharmaceuticals Inc.; 2016
• 102 Plenvu (polyethylene glycol 3350, sodium ascorbate, sodium sulfate, ascorbic acid, sodium chloride and potassium chloride for oral solution) [package insert]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Norgine B.V.; 2019
• 103 Suprep Bowel Prep Kit (sodium sulfate, potassium sulfate, and magnesium sulfate) oral solution [package insert]. Braintree, MA: Braintree Laboratories, Inc.; 2010
• 104 Prepopik (sodium picosulfate, magnesium oxide, and anhydrous citric acid) for oral solution [package insert]. Parsippany, NJ: Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc.; 2012
• 105 Osmoprep (sodium phosphate monobasic monohydrate, USP and sodium phosphate dibasic anhydrous, USP) Tablets [package insert]. Bridgewater, NJ: Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 2016
• 106 Clenpiq (sodium phosphate monobasic monohydrate, USP and sodium phosphate dibasic anhydrous, USP) Tablets [package insert]. Parsippany, NJ: Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 2017
• 107 MiraLAX (polyethylene glycol 3350, powder for solution, osmotic laxative) [package insert]. Boca Raton, FL: Bayer; 2019
• 108 Chisholm S, Patel AM, Tierney WM. et al. Adult bowel preparations for colonoscopy. J Okla State Med Assoc 2015; 108: 311-317
• 109 Rutherford CC, Calderwood AH. Update on bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 2018; 16: 165-181
• 110 DiPalma JA, Marshall JB. Comparison of a new sulfate-free polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution versus a standard solution for colonoscopy cleansing. Gastrointest Endosc 1990; 36: 285-289
• 111 Davis GR, Santa Ana CA, Morawski SG. et al. Development of a lavage solution associated with minimal water and electrolyte absorption or secretion. Gastroenterology 1980; 78: 991-995
• 112 DiPalma JA, Brady 3rd CE. Colon cleansing for diagnostic and surgical procedures: polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution. Am J Gastroenterol 1989; 84: 1008-1016
• 113 Hillyer GC, Lebwohl B, Basch CH. et al. Split dose and MiraLAX-based purgatives to enhance bowel preparation quality becoming common recommendations in the US. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2013; 6: 5-14
• 114 Xie Q, Chen L, Zhao F. et al. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of low-volume polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid versus standard-volume polyethylene glycol solution as bowel preparations for colonoscopy. PLoS One 2014; 9: e99092
• 115 Bisschops R, Manning J, Clayton LB. et al. Colon cleansing efficacy and safety with 1 L NER1006 versus 2 L polyethylene glycol + ascorbate: a randomized phase 3 trial. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 60-72
• 116 DeMicco MP, Clayton LB, Pilot J. et al. Novel 1 L polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation NER1006 for overall and right-sided colon cleansing: a randomized controlled phase 3 trial versus trisulfate. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 677-687
• 117 Schreiber S, Baumgart DC, Drenth JPH. et al. Colon cleansing efficacy and safety with 1 L NER1006 versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate: a randomized phase 3 trial. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 73-84
• 118 Yang HJ, Park SK, Kim JH. et al. Randomized trial comparing oral sulfate solution with 4-L polyethylene glycol administered in a split dose as preparation for colonoscopy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 32: 12-18
• 119 Berkelhammer C, Ekambaram A, Silva RG. Low-volume oral colonoscopy bowel preparation: sodium phosphate and magnesium citrate. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: 89-94