S388 Low-Residue Diets Paired With Low Volume Preparations: A New Paradigm for Colonoscopy Bowel Prep – A Meta Analysis

Introduction: Adequate bowel preparation is important in achieving a high-quality colonoscopy. A clear liquid diet (CLD) is generally recommended prior to colonoscopy; however, it may be associated with patient discomfort, hunger, and poor tolerability, impacting adherence to preparation. Moreover, these challenges are often exacerbated by the use of traditional large-volume bowel preparations. Recent bowel preparations have moved towards smaller volumes to reduce patient discomfort. Low residue diet (LRD), when paired with low-volume bowel preparation, could possibly be a more comfortable alternative without compromising the quality of bowel cleansing. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of LRD and CLD in adults undergoing low-volume (≤3 liters) bowel preparation. Methods: A literature review was conducted across multiple databases, including Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov through October 2024. Only randomized controlled trials that compared LRD to CLD with low volume colonoscopy preparation were included. The primary outcome assessed was adequate bowel preparation. Secondary outcomes included tolerability, adverse events, polyp detection rates, adenoma detection rates, compliance with diet, cecal intubation rate, and readiness to repeat preparation. Results: A total of 8 studies with 2,338 patients were included. Overall, 1,117 patients underwent CLD preparation, and 1,221 patients underwent LRD preparation. Findings suggest that LRD is non-inferior to CLD regarding bowel preparation adequacy (odds ratio: 0.70, confidence interval [0.26, 1.88], P = 0.48). There were similar rates of tolerability, compliance, adverse events, polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation rate, and readiness to repeat bowel preparation across the CLD and LRD groups. Conclusion: Low-residue diets paired with low-volume bowel preparations are well-tolerated and effective alternatives to clear liquid diet and large volume bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Low residue and low volume preparations show similar patient compliance and comfort as clear liquid preparation without compromising preparation quality or diagnostic efficacy. These findings support the adoption of LRD and low volume bowel preparation as a recommendation in clinical practice, potentially enhancing patient experience.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.14309/01.ajg.0001129012.37686.1e
Primary Topic
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

S388 Low-Residue Diets Paired With Low Volume Preparations: A New Paradigm for Colonoscopy Bowel Prep – A Meta Analysis

Suhail Sidhu, Jason Samarasena, Joshua Kwon, Frances Dang et al.
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
article

S388 Low-Residue Diets Paired With Low Volume Preparations: A New Paradigm for Colonoscopy Bowel Prep – A Meta Analysis

Suhail Sidhu, Jason Samarasena, Joshua Kwon, Frances Dang, Brian Mendoza, David L. Cheung, John G. Lee, Marie Balfour, Yuri Kwon, Momin Masroor, Bryant Le
article en

Abstract

Introduction: Adequate bowel preparation is important in achieving a high-quality colonoscopy. A clear liquid diet (CLD) is generally recommended prior to colonoscopy; however, it may be associated with patient discomfort, hunger, and poor tolerability, impacting adherence to preparation. Moreover, these challenges are often exacerbated by the use of traditional large-volume bowel preparations. Recent bowel preparations have moved towards smaller volumes to reduce patient discomfort. Low residue diet (LRD), when paired with low-volume bowel preparation, could possibly be a more comfortable alternative without compromising the quality of bowel cleansing. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of LRD and CLD in adults undergoing low-volume (≤3 liters) bowel preparation. Methods: A literature review was conducted across multiple databases, including Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov through October 2024. Only randomized controlled trials that compared LRD to CLD with low volume colonoscopy preparation were included. The primary outcome assessed was adequate bowel preparation. Secondary outcomes included tolerability, adverse events, polyp detection rates, adenoma detection rates, compliance with diet, cecal intubation rate, and readiness to repeat preparation. Results: A total of 8 studies with 2,338 patients were included. Overall, 1,117 patients underwent CLD preparation, and 1,221 patients underwent LRD preparation. Findings suggest that LRD is non-inferior to CLD regarding bowel preparation adequacy (odds ratio: 0.70, confidence interval [0.26, 1.88], P = 0.48). There were similar rates of tolerability, compliance, adverse events, polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation rate, and readiness to repeat bowel preparation across the CLD and LRD groups. Conclusion: Low-residue diets paired with low-volume bowel preparations are well-tolerated and effective alternatives to clear liquid diet and large volume bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Low residue and low volume preparations show similar patient compliance and comfort as clear liquid preparation without compromising preparation quality or diagnostic efficacy. These findings support the adoption of LRD and low volume bowel preparation as a recommendation in clinical practice, potentially enhancing patient experience.

The American Journal of GastroenterologyVol. 120(10S2)
Openalex Percentile: Top 58%
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
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.