Split-dose bowel preparation is superior to straight-dose in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy
Arquivos de Gastroenterologia, ISSN: 1678-4219, Vol: 60, Issue: 1, Page: 39-47
2023
- 1Citations
- 2Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Background – There is a two-fold higher rate of failed colonoscopy secondary to inadequate bowel preparation among hospitalized versus ambulatory patients. Split-dose bowel preparation is widely used in the outpatient setting but has not been generally adapted for use among the inpatient population. Objective – The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of split versus single dose polyethylene glycol bowel (PEG) preparation for inpatient colonoscopies and determine additional procedural and patient characteristics that drive inpatient colonoscopy quality. Methods – A retrospective cohort study was performed on 189 patients who underwent inpatient colonoscopy and received 4 liters PEG as either split- or straight-dose during a 6-month period in 2017 at an academic medical center. Bowel preparation quality was assessed using Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS), Aronchick Score, and reported adequacy of preparation. Results – Bowel preparation was reported as adequate in 89% of the split-dose group versus 66% in the straight-dose group (P=0.0003). Inadequate bowel preparations were documented in 34.2% of the single-dose group and 10.7% of the split-dose group (P<0.001). Only 40% of patients received split-dose PEG. Mean BBPS was significantly lower in the straight-dose group (Total: 6.32 vs 7.73, P<0.001). Conclusion – Split-dose bowel preparation is superior to straight-dose preparation across reportable quality metrics for non-screening colonoscopies and was readily performed in the inpatient setting. Interventions should be targeted at shifting the culture of gastroenterologist prescribing practices towards use of split-dose bowel preparation for inpatient colonoscopy.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85159450304&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0004-2803.202301000-06; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37194778; http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-28032023000100039&tlng=en; http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-28032023000100039&lng=en&tlng=en; http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S0004-28032023000100039&lng=en&tlng=en; http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-28032023000100039; http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S0004-28032023000100039; https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0004-2803.202301000-06; https://www.scielo.br/j/ag/a/Y3dpxFNW4pzDZ549yD8cKhq/?lang=en
FapUNIFESP (SciELO)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know