Table 1

Characteristics of studies included in quantitative analysis and risk of bias ratings

StudyYearNoAgeRegimen 1Regimen 2Regimen 3Regimen 4Main outcomes reported in the studyContextRandomisationAllocation concealmentBlindingIncomplete outcomesSelective reportingOther
Gremse et al 4 1996343–17 yearsSodium phosphatePEGN/AN/AThe bowel preparation was excellent or good in 18/19 patients in sodium phosphate
Group and 6/15 in PEG group. The incidence of vomiting was similar in both groups, but abdominal pain occurred more in PEG group.
Elective colonoscopyUnclear—one of the authors randomised patients into groupsOne of the authors assigned the patients to their groups, also perform colonoscopiesAppear single blindUnclear, no ITTHigh—details of adverse events not givenNone
Sinha et al 6 2007126Mean 3 yearsSodium chloridePEGRinger lactateN/ABowel preparation was good in 35/40 in Nacl group, 49/55 in PEG group and 29/31 of lactate group. All three were similar in safetyElective surgeryUnclearUnclearAppear single blindLow riskUnclear riskNone
Kierkus et al 8 201324010–18 yearsBPEGPEGSennosidesN/AThere were no significant differences found for the proportions of participants with excellent/good (PEG: 35/79, BPEG: 26/79, sennosides: 25/76) bowel preparationElective colonoscopyList created by independent person using blockYesSingle blindLow riskLow riskNone
Kumar and Hussain12 2013301 month–7 yearsNormal salinePEGN/AN/ABowel preparation was rated as good/very good in 14/15 in the PEG group and 15/15 in the NS group. More symptomatic complications were noted in the NS group (7) than in PEG group (1).Various surgical proceduresUnclearUnclearUnclearLow riskLowNone apparent
Turner et al 11 2009834–18 yearsPico-SalaxPEG-ELSN/AN/ABowel preparation was judged as good/excellent in 33/43 of Pico-sSalax group and 32/40 PEG-ELS group. No significant difference in safety was found between the groupsElective colonoscopyComputer-generated list in blocks of 6YesSingle blindYesLow riskFunded by pharma but not involved in study
Di Nardo et al 10 20142992 years–18 yearsPEG-ELS with simethiconePEG with citrate and bisacodylPEG 3350 with ascorbic acidSodium picosulfate, Magesium oxide+citric acidNo statistical difference was found between any group using the Boston scoring system (p=0.910). No serious adverse events occurred in any group.Elective colonoscopyComputer generated listOpaque sealed signed envelopUnblindLow riskLow riskNone apparent
Dahshan et al 9 1999703–20 yearsMagnesium citrate with X-prepDulcolax and Fleet EnemaGolytely (PEG)N/ABowel preparation was rated as excellent in 6/20 of X-prep group, 2/19 Dulcolax and 15/31 of PEG group. Statistically more side effects were reported in the PEG group.Elective colonoscopyNo detail givenUnclearSingle blindLow riskLow riskNone apparent
Terry et al 7 2013336–21 yearsPEG-PSennaN/AN/ABowel preparation was rated as excellent/good in 14/16 of PEG-P group and 4/14 of the senna group. Both were well tolerated by patient-graded ease of preparation.Elective colonoscopyRandomly chosen preparation packetA nurse administer – no further detailsSingle blindLow riskLow riskNone apparent
da Silva et al 13 1997303–14 yearsSodium phosphatePEGN/AN/AExcellent-to-good colonic cleansing was achieved in 10/14 in sodium phosphate group and 11/15 of PEG group. Patients recorded less discomfort with orally administered Fleet than with high-volume balanced-lavage preparationElective colonoscopyComputer generated and randomly assignedUnclear riskUnclear riskUnclearHigh riskNone apparent
  • BPEG, polyethylene glycol combined with bisacodyl; ITT, intention to treat; N/A, not applicable; NACL, sodium chloride; NS, normal saline; PEG, polyethylene glycol; PEG-ELS, polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution; PEG-P, polyethylene glycol without electrolytes.