S495 Comparing Safety and Efficacy of Different Bowel Preparation Regimens in Constipated Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Introduction: Insufficient bowel preparation (IBP) reduces colonoscopy effectiveness, with constipation as a key risk factor. This study conducts a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of different bowel preparation regimens for constipated patients. Methods: Databases including PubMed, Cochrane Central, and ScienceDirect were explored from their inception up to May 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining various bowel preparation regimens in constipated patients undergoing colonoscopy. A frequentist network meta-analysis was executed using R version 4.2.1 with the “netmeta” package, applying a random effects model. Treatment rankings were established using P-scores, while the risk of bias was evaluated with the ROB 2.0 tool. Publication bias was assessed visually via funnel plots and statistically through Egger’s Regression test. Results: Fifteen RCTs were included in this network meta-analysis. Compared to 4L PEG (polyethylene glycol), 3L PEG + 3d-Lin (3 days-Linaclotide) (RR = 1.29; 95% CI: [1.12, 1.47], P= 0.0002), 4L PEG + 1d-Lin (RR = 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.04, 1.51], P= 0.02), NaP (sodium phosphate) + bisacodyl (RR = 1.52; 95% CI: [1.09, 2.10], P= 0.01) and Probiotic 14d + NaP (RR = 3.59; 95% CI: [1.83, 7.04], P= 0.0002) arms significantly increased the adequate bowel preparation with Probiotic 14d + NaP group ranked highest and Senna + MgSO4 (Magnesium sulphate) ranked lowest regarding this outcome. The risk of all other adverse effects, including nausea, vomiting, and bloating, was comparable between different regimens, except abdominal pain, which was significantly reduced in the 3L PEG + 3d-Lin arm (RR = 0.18; 95% CI: [0.04, 0.88], P= 0.03) compared to 4L PEG. Conclusion: In constipated patients, Probiotic 14d + NaP showed the highest efficacy for adequate bowel preparation, while Senna + MgSO4 was least effective. Additionally, 3L PEG + 3d-Lin reduced abdominal pain compared to 4L PEG, with comparable rates of other adverse effects across bowel preparation regimens.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.14309/01.ajg.0001129440.15175.a1
Primary Topic
Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

S495 Comparing Safety and Efficacy of Different Bowel Preparation Regimens in Constipated Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Khadija Mohib, Muhammad Hassan Waseem, Prasun K. Jalal, Zain ul Abideen et al.
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
article

S495 Comparing Safety and Efficacy of Different Bowel Preparation Regimens in Constipated Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Khadija Mohib, Muhammad Hassan Waseem, Prasun K. Jalal, Zain ul Abideen, Noor Ul Huda Ramzan, Abu-Bakr Ahmed, Mian Uman Anwer, Sania Aimen
article en

Abstract

Introduction: Insufficient bowel preparation (IBP) reduces colonoscopy effectiveness, with constipation as a key risk factor. This study conducts a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of different bowel preparation regimens for constipated patients. Methods: Databases including PubMed, Cochrane Central, and ScienceDirect were explored from their inception up to May 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining various bowel preparation regimens in constipated patients undergoing colonoscopy. A frequentist network meta-analysis was executed using R version 4.2.1 with the “netmeta” package, applying a random effects model. Treatment rankings were established using P-scores, while the risk of bias was evaluated with the ROB 2.0 tool. Publication bias was assessed visually via funnel plots and statistically through Egger’s Regression test. Results: Fifteen RCTs were included in this network meta-analysis. Compared to 4L PEG (polyethylene glycol), 3L PEG + 3d-Lin (3 days-Linaclotide) (RR = 1.29; 95% CI: [1.12, 1.47], P= 0.0002), 4L PEG + 1d-Lin (RR = 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.04, 1.51], P= 0.02), NaP (sodium phosphate) + bisacodyl (RR = 1.52; 95% CI: [1.09, 2.10], P= 0.01) and Probiotic 14d + NaP (RR = 3.59; 95% CI: [1.83, 7.04], P= 0.0002) arms significantly increased the adequate bowel preparation with Probiotic 14d + NaP group ranked highest and Senna + MgSO4 (Magnesium sulphate) ranked lowest regarding this outcome. The risk of all other adverse effects, including nausea, vomiting, and bloating, was comparable between different regimens, except abdominal pain, which was significantly reduced in the 3L PEG + 3d-Lin arm (RR = 0.18; 95% CI: [0.04, 0.88], P= 0.03) compared to 4L PEG. Conclusion: In constipated patients, Probiotic 14d + NaP showed the highest efficacy for adequate bowel preparation, while Senna + MgSO4 was least effective. Additionally, 3L PEG + 3d-Lin reduced abdominal pain compared to 4L PEG, with comparable rates of other adverse effects across bowel preparation regimens.

The American Journal of GastroenterologyVol. 120(10S2)
Openalex Percentile: Top 58%
Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.