Evaluating lubiprostone for effective bowel preparation before colonoscopy
Background Colon preparation is a fundamental step for performing a successful colonoscopy. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of administering lubiprostone (LB) added to a single dose of oral polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution in achieving satisfactory colon cleanliness and decreasing the side...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Hamada, Yasser [verfasserIn] Emam, Ibrahim [verfasserIn] Maher, Rabab [verfasserIn] El-Garem, Hassan [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Egyptian liver journal - [London] : SpringerOpen, 2011, 11(2021), 1 vom: 20. März |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:11 ; year:2021 ; number:1 ; day:20 ; month:03 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1186/s43066-021-00087-7 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
SPR043575447 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | SPR043575447 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20210321064820.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 210321s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s43066-021-00087-7 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)SPR043575447 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)SPRs43066-021-00087-7-e | ||
| 035 | |a (SPR)s43066-021-00087-7-e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Hamada, Yasser |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Evaluating lubiprostone for effective bowel preparation before colonoscopy |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Background Colon preparation is a fundamental step for performing a successful colonoscopy. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of administering lubiprostone (LB) added to a single dose of oral polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution in achieving satisfactory colon cleanliness and decreasing the side effects. Results One-hundred percent of the control group patients reported that the experienced taste was worse than expected, while in the intervention group half of the patients (50%) said that the taste was natural and 48% experienced taste worse than expected (p<0.0001). Regarding Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS), there was a significant difference in the overall Boston scale (p=0.02) with more efficacy in the intervention group as 66% of patients in the intervention group had good bowel preparation (5–7) and 24% excellent preparation (8–9). On the other hand, the overall Boston scale in the control group showed that 54% of patients were between 5 and 7, and only 16% of patients had overall Boston scale 8–9. In terms of the side effects of the preparation in both arms, the majority of cases in the intervention arm did not complain of any side effects (78%), while the majority of the complaints were vomiting in 16% of the intervention cases. Conclusion The current evidence suggested that adding LB to the colon preparation significantly improved the tolerability and efficacy. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Colonoscopy |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Lubiprostone |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Polyethylene glycol |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Bowel preparation |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Comparative study |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Emam, Ibrahim |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Maher, Rabab |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a El-Garem, Hassan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Egyptian liver journal |d [London] : SpringerOpen, 2011 |g 11(2021), 1 vom: 20. März |w (DE-627)1733559663 |w (DE-600)3038187-3 |x 2090-6226 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:11 |g year:2021 |g number:1 |g day:20 |g month:03 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43066-021-00087-7 |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 11 |j 2021 |e 1 |b 20 |c 03 | ||
| author_variant |
y h yh i e ie r m rm h e g heg |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:20906226:2021----::vlaiguirsoeoefcieoepeaai |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2021 |
| publishDate |
2021 |
| allfields |
10.1186/s43066-021-00087-7 doi (DE-627)SPR043575447 (DE-599)SPRs43066-021-00087-7-e (SPR)s43066-021-00087-7-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Hamada, Yasser verfasserin aut Evaluating lubiprostone for effective bowel preparation before colonoscopy 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background Colon preparation is a fundamental step for performing a successful colonoscopy. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of administering lubiprostone (LB) added to a single dose of oral polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution in achieving satisfactory colon cleanliness and decreasing the side effects. Results One-hundred percent of the control group patients reported that the experienced taste was worse than expected, while in the intervention group half of the patients (50%) said that the taste was natural and 48% experienced taste worse than expected (p<0.0001). Regarding Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS), there was a significant difference in the overall Boston scale (p=0.02) with more efficacy in the intervention group as 66% of patients in the intervention group had good bowel preparation (5–7) and 24% excellent preparation (8–9). On the other hand, the overall Boston scale in the control group showed that 54% of patients were between 5 and 7, and only 16% of patients had overall Boston scale 8–9. In terms of the side effects of the preparation in both arms, the majority of cases in the intervention arm did not complain of any side effects (78%), while the majority of the complaints were vomiting in 16% of the intervention cases. Conclusion The current evidence suggested that adding LB to the colon preparation significantly improved the tolerability and efficacy. Colonoscopy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Lubiprostone (dpeaa)DE-He213 Polyethylene glycol (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bowel preparation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Comparative study (dpeaa)DE-He213 Emam, Ibrahim verfasserin aut Maher, Rabab verfasserin aut El-Garem, Hassan verfasserin aut Enthalten in Egyptian liver journal [London] : SpringerOpen, 2011 11(2021), 1 vom: 20. März (DE-627)1733559663 (DE-600)3038187-3 2090-6226 nnns volume:11 year:2021 number:1 day:20 month:03 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43066-021-00087-7 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 11 2021 1 20 03 |
| spelling |
10.1186/s43066-021-00087-7 doi (DE-627)SPR043575447 (DE-599)SPRs43066-021-00087-7-e (SPR)s43066-021-00087-7-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Hamada, Yasser verfasserin aut Evaluating lubiprostone for effective bowel preparation before colonoscopy 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background Colon preparation is a fundamental step for performing a successful colonoscopy. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of administering lubiprostone (LB) added to a single dose of oral polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution in achieving satisfactory colon cleanliness and decreasing the side effects. Results One-hundred percent of the control group patients reported that the experienced taste was worse than expected, while in the intervention group half of the patients (50%) said that the taste was natural and 48% experienced taste worse than expected (p<0.0001). Regarding Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS), there was a significant difference in the overall Boston scale (p=0.02) with more efficacy in the intervention group as 66% of patients in the intervention group had good bowel preparation (5–7) and 24% excellent preparation (8–9). On the other hand, the overall Boston scale in the control group showed that 54% of patients were between 5 and 7, and only 16% of patients had overall Boston scale 8–9. In terms of the side effects of the preparation in both arms, the majority of cases in the intervention arm did not complain of any side effects (78%), while the majority of the complaints were vomiting in 16% of the intervention cases. Conclusion The current evidence suggested that adding LB to the colon preparation significantly improved the tolerability and efficacy. Colonoscopy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Lubiprostone (dpeaa)DE-He213 Polyethylene glycol (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bowel preparation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Comparative study (dpeaa)DE-He213 Emam, Ibrahim verfasserin aut Maher, Rabab verfasserin aut El-Garem, Hassan verfasserin aut Enthalten in Egyptian liver journal [London] : SpringerOpen, 2011 11(2021), 1 vom: 20. März (DE-627)1733559663 (DE-600)3038187-3 2090-6226 nnns volume:11 year:2021 number:1 day:20 month:03 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43066-021-00087-7 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 11 2021 1 20 03 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1186/s43066-021-00087-7 doi (DE-627)SPR043575447 (DE-599)SPRs43066-021-00087-7-e (SPR)s43066-021-00087-7-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Hamada, Yasser verfasserin aut Evaluating lubiprostone for effective bowel preparation before colonoscopy 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background Colon preparation is a fundamental step for performing a successful colonoscopy. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of administering lubiprostone (LB) added to a single dose of oral polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution in achieving satisfactory colon cleanliness and decreasing the side effects. Results One-hundred percent of the control group patients reported that the experienced taste was worse than expected, while in the intervention group half of the patients (50%) said that the taste was natural and 48% experienced taste worse than expected (p<0.0001). Regarding Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS), there was a significant difference in the overall Boston scale (p=0.02) with more efficacy in the intervention group as 66% of patients in the intervention group had good bowel preparation (5–7) and 24% excellent preparation (8–9). On the other hand, the overall Boston scale in the control group showed that 54% of patients were between 5 and 7, and only 16% of patients had overall Boston scale 8–9. In terms of the side effects of the preparation in both arms, the majority of cases in the intervention arm did not complain of any side effects (78%), while the majority of the complaints were vomiting in 16% of the intervention cases. Conclusion The current evidence suggested that adding LB to the colon preparation significantly improved the tolerability and efficacy. Colonoscopy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Lubiprostone (dpeaa)DE-He213 Polyethylene glycol (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bowel preparation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Comparative study (dpeaa)DE-He213 Emam, Ibrahim verfasserin aut Maher, Rabab verfasserin aut El-Garem, Hassan verfasserin aut Enthalten in Egyptian liver journal [London] : SpringerOpen, 2011 11(2021), 1 vom: 20. März (DE-627)1733559663 (DE-600)3038187-3 2090-6226 nnns volume:11 year:2021 number:1 day:20 month:03 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43066-021-00087-7 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 11 2021 1 20 03 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1186/s43066-021-00087-7 doi (DE-627)SPR043575447 (DE-599)SPRs43066-021-00087-7-e (SPR)s43066-021-00087-7-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Hamada, Yasser verfasserin aut Evaluating lubiprostone for effective bowel preparation before colonoscopy 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background Colon preparation is a fundamental step for performing a successful colonoscopy. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of administering lubiprostone (LB) added to a single dose of oral polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution in achieving satisfactory colon cleanliness and decreasing the side effects. Results One-hundred percent of the control group patients reported that the experienced taste was worse than expected, while in the intervention group half of the patients (50%) said that the taste was natural and 48% experienced taste worse than expected (p<0.0001). Regarding Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS), there was a significant difference in the overall Boston scale (p=0.02) with more efficacy in the intervention group as 66% of patients in the intervention group had good bowel preparation (5–7) and 24% excellent preparation (8–9). On the other hand, the overall Boston scale in the control group showed that 54% of patients were between 5 and 7, and only 16% of patients had overall Boston scale 8–9. In terms of the side effects of the preparation in both arms, the majority of cases in the intervention arm did not complain of any side effects (78%), while the majority of the complaints were vomiting in 16% of the intervention cases. Conclusion The current evidence suggested that adding LB to the colon preparation significantly improved the tolerability and efficacy. Colonoscopy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Lubiprostone (dpeaa)DE-He213 Polyethylene glycol (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bowel preparation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Comparative study (dpeaa)DE-He213 Emam, Ibrahim verfasserin aut Maher, Rabab verfasserin aut El-Garem, Hassan verfasserin aut Enthalten in Egyptian liver journal [London] : SpringerOpen, 2011 11(2021), 1 vom: 20. März (DE-627)1733559663 (DE-600)3038187-3 2090-6226 nnns volume:11 year:2021 number:1 day:20 month:03 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43066-021-00087-7 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 11 2021 1 20 03 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1186/s43066-021-00087-7 doi (DE-627)SPR043575447 (DE-599)SPRs43066-021-00087-7-e (SPR)s43066-021-00087-7-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Hamada, Yasser verfasserin aut Evaluating lubiprostone for effective bowel preparation before colonoscopy 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background Colon preparation is a fundamental step for performing a successful colonoscopy. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of administering lubiprostone (LB) added to a single dose of oral polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution in achieving satisfactory colon cleanliness and decreasing the side effects. Results One-hundred percent of the control group patients reported that the experienced taste was worse than expected, while in the intervention group half of the patients (50%) said that the taste was natural and 48% experienced taste worse than expected (p<0.0001). Regarding Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS), there was a significant difference in the overall Boston scale (p=0.02) with more efficacy in the intervention group as 66% of patients in the intervention group had good bowel preparation (5–7) and 24% excellent preparation (8–9). On the other hand, the overall Boston scale in the control group showed that 54% of patients were between 5 and 7, and only 16% of patients had overall Boston scale 8–9. In terms of the side effects of the preparation in both arms, the majority of cases in the intervention arm did not complain of any side effects (78%), while the majority of the complaints were vomiting in 16% of the intervention cases. Conclusion The current evidence suggested that adding LB to the colon preparation significantly improved the tolerability and efficacy. Colonoscopy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Lubiprostone (dpeaa)DE-He213 Polyethylene glycol (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bowel preparation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Comparative study (dpeaa)DE-He213 Emam, Ibrahim verfasserin aut Maher, Rabab verfasserin aut El-Garem, Hassan verfasserin aut Enthalten in Egyptian liver journal [London] : SpringerOpen, 2011 11(2021), 1 vom: 20. März (DE-627)1733559663 (DE-600)3038187-3 2090-6226 nnns volume:11 year:2021 number:1 day:20 month:03 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43066-021-00087-7 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 11 2021 1 20 03 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Egyptian liver journal 11(2021), 1 vom: 20. März volume:11 year:2021 number:1 day:20 month:03 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Egyptian liver journal 11(2021), 1 vom: 20. März volume:11 year:2021 number:1 day:20 month:03 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Colonoscopy Lubiprostone Polyethylene glycol Bowel preparation Comparative study |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
Egyptian liver journal |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Hamada, Yasser @@aut@@ Emam, Ibrahim @@aut@@ Maher, Rabab @@aut@@ El-Garem, Hassan @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2021-03-20T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
1733559663 |
| id |
SPR043575447 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR043575447</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20210321064820.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">210321s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s43066-021-00087-7</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR043575447</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)SPRs43066-021-00087-7-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s43066-021-00087-7-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hamada, Yasser</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Evaluating lubiprostone for effective bowel preparation before colonoscopy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Colon preparation is a fundamental step for performing a successful colonoscopy. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of administering lubiprostone (LB) added to a single dose of oral polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution in achieving satisfactory colon cleanliness and decreasing the side effects. Results One-hundred percent of the control group patients reported that the experienced taste was worse than expected, while in the intervention group half of the patients (50%) said that the taste was natural and 48% experienced taste worse than expected (p<0.0001). Regarding Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS), there was a significant difference in the overall Boston scale (p=0.02) with more efficacy in the intervention group as 66% of patients in the intervention group had good bowel preparation (5–7) and 24% excellent preparation (8–9). On the other hand, the overall Boston scale in the control group showed that 54% of patients were between 5 and 7, and only 16% of patients had overall Boston scale 8–9. In terms of the side effects of the preparation in both arms, the majority of cases in the intervention arm did not complain of any side effects (78%), while the majority of the complaints were vomiting in 16% of the intervention cases. Conclusion The current evidence suggested that adding LB to the colon preparation significantly improved the tolerability and efficacy.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Colonoscopy</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Lubiprostone</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Polyethylene glycol</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Bowel preparation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Comparative study</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Emam, Ibrahim</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Maher, Rabab</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">El-Garem, Hassan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Egyptian liver journal</subfield><subfield code="d">[London] : SpringerOpen, 2011</subfield><subfield code="g">11(2021), 1 vom: 20. März</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1733559663</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)3038187-3</subfield><subfield code="x">2090-6226</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:11</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:20</subfield><subfield code="g">month:03</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43066-021-00087-7</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">11</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">20</subfield><subfield code="c">03</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Hamada, Yasser |
| spellingShingle |
Hamada, Yasser misc Colonoscopy misc Lubiprostone misc Polyethylene glycol misc Bowel preparation misc Comparative study Evaluating lubiprostone for effective bowel preparation before colonoscopy |
| authorStr |
Hamada, Yasser |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)1733559663 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
springer |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
2090-6226 |
| topic_title |
Evaluating lubiprostone for effective bowel preparation before colonoscopy Colonoscopy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Lubiprostone (dpeaa)DE-He213 Polyethylene glycol (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bowel preparation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Comparative study (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
| topic |
misc Colonoscopy misc Lubiprostone misc Polyethylene glycol misc Bowel preparation misc Comparative study |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc Colonoscopy misc Lubiprostone misc Polyethylene glycol misc Bowel preparation misc Comparative study |
| topic_browse |
misc Colonoscopy misc Lubiprostone misc Polyethylene glycol misc Bowel preparation misc Comparative study |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Egyptian liver journal |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
1733559663 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Egyptian liver journal |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)1733559663 (DE-600)3038187-3 |
| title |
Evaluating lubiprostone for effective bowel preparation before colonoscopy |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR043575447 (DE-599)SPRs43066-021-00087-7-e (SPR)s43066-021-00087-7-e |
| title_full |
Evaluating lubiprostone for effective bowel preparation before colonoscopy |
| author_sort |
Hamada, Yasser |
| journal |
Egyptian liver journal |
| journalStr |
Egyptian liver journal |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2021 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| author_browse |
Hamada, Yasser Emam, Ibrahim Maher, Rabab El-Garem, Hassan |
| container_volume |
11 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Hamada, Yasser |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1186/s43066-021-00087-7 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
evaluating lubiprostone for effective bowel preparation before colonoscopy |
| title_auth |
Evaluating lubiprostone for effective bowel preparation before colonoscopy |
| abstract |
Background Colon preparation is a fundamental step for performing a successful colonoscopy. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of administering lubiprostone (LB) added to a single dose of oral polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution in achieving satisfactory colon cleanliness and decreasing the side effects. Results One-hundred percent of the control group patients reported that the experienced taste was worse than expected, while in the intervention group half of the patients (50%) said that the taste was natural and 48% experienced taste worse than expected (p<0.0001). Regarding Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS), there was a significant difference in the overall Boston scale (p=0.02) with more efficacy in the intervention group as 66% of patients in the intervention group had good bowel preparation (5–7) and 24% excellent preparation (8–9). On the other hand, the overall Boston scale in the control group showed that 54% of patients were between 5 and 7, and only 16% of patients had overall Boston scale 8–9. In terms of the side effects of the preparation in both arms, the majority of cases in the intervention arm did not complain of any side effects (78%), while the majority of the complaints were vomiting in 16% of the intervention cases. Conclusion The current evidence suggested that adding LB to the colon preparation significantly improved the tolerability and efficacy. |
| abstractGer |
Background Colon preparation is a fundamental step for performing a successful colonoscopy. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of administering lubiprostone (LB) added to a single dose of oral polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution in achieving satisfactory colon cleanliness and decreasing the side effects. Results One-hundred percent of the control group patients reported that the experienced taste was worse than expected, while in the intervention group half of the patients (50%) said that the taste was natural and 48% experienced taste worse than expected (p<0.0001). Regarding Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS), there was a significant difference in the overall Boston scale (p=0.02) with more efficacy in the intervention group as 66% of patients in the intervention group had good bowel preparation (5–7) and 24% excellent preparation (8–9). On the other hand, the overall Boston scale in the control group showed that 54% of patients were between 5 and 7, and only 16% of patients had overall Boston scale 8–9. In terms of the side effects of the preparation in both arms, the majority of cases in the intervention arm did not complain of any side effects (78%), while the majority of the complaints were vomiting in 16% of the intervention cases. Conclusion The current evidence suggested that adding LB to the colon preparation significantly improved the tolerability and efficacy. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Background Colon preparation is a fundamental step for performing a successful colonoscopy. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of administering lubiprostone (LB) added to a single dose of oral polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution in achieving satisfactory colon cleanliness and decreasing the side effects. Results One-hundred percent of the control group patients reported that the experienced taste was worse than expected, while in the intervention group half of the patients (50%) said that the taste was natural and 48% experienced taste worse than expected (p<0.0001). Regarding Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS), there was a significant difference in the overall Boston scale (p=0.02) with more efficacy in the intervention group as 66% of patients in the intervention group had good bowel preparation (5–7) and 24% excellent preparation (8–9). On the other hand, the overall Boston scale in the control group showed that 54% of patients were between 5 and 7, and only 16% of patients had overall Boston scale 8–9. In terms of the side effects of the preparation in both arms, the majority of cases in the intervention arm did not complain of any side effects (78%), while the majority of the complaints were vomiting in 16% of the intervention cases. Conclusion The current evidence suggested that adding LB to the colon preparation significantly improved the tolerability and efficacy. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
Evaluating lubiprostone for effective bowel preparation before colonoscopy |
| url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43066-021-00087-7 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Emam, Ibrahim Maher, Rabab El-Garem, Hassan |
| author2Str |
Emam, Ibrahim Maher, Rabab El-Garem, Hassan |
| ppnlink |
1733559663 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1186/s43066-021-00087-7 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T19:32:10.009Z |
| _version_ |
1803587556496900096 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR043575447</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20210321064820.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">210321s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s43066-021-00087-7</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR043575447</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)SPRs43066-021-00087-7-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s43066-021-00087-7-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hamada, Yasser</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Evaluating lubiprostone for effective bowel preparation before colonoscopy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Colon preparation is a fundamental step for performing a successful colonoscopy. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of administering lubiprostone (LB) added to a single dose of oral polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution in achieving satisfactory colon cleanliness and decreasing the side effects. Results One-hundred percent of the control group patients reported that the experienced taste was worse than expected, while in the intervention group half of the patients (50%) said that the taste was natural and 48% experienced taste worse than expected (p<0.0001). Regarding Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS), there was a significant difference in the overall Boston scale (p=0.02) with more efficacy in the intervention group as 66% of patients in the intervention group had good bowel preparation (5–7) and 24% excellent preparation (8–9). On the other hand, the overall Boston scale in the control group showed that 54% of patients were between 5 and 7, and only 16% of patients had overall Boston scale 8–9. In terms of the side effects of the preparation in both arms, the majority of cases in the intervention arm did not complain of any side effects (78%), while the majority of the complaints were vomiting in 16% of the intervention cases. Conclusion The current evidence suggested that adding LB to the colon preparation significantly improved the tolerability and efficacy.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Colonoscopy</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Lubiprostone</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Polyethylene glycol</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Bowel preparation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Comparative study</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Emam, Ibrahim</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Maher, Rabab</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">El-Garem, Hassan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Egyptian liver journal</subfield><subfield code="d">[London] : SpringerOpen, 2011</subfield><subfield code="g">11(2021), 1 vom: 20. März</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1733559663</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)3038187-3</subfield><subfield code="x">2090-6226</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:11</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:20</subfield><subfield code="g">month:03</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43066-021-00087-7</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">11</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">20</subfield><subfield code="c">03</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.3995905 |