Journal article icon

Journal article

Efficacy and acceptability of bowel preparation strategies for inflammatory bowel disease colonoscopy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract:
Background and study aimsPatients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) frequently undergo colonoscopy, each requiring bowel preparation. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) 2019 guidelines recommended high- or low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based bowel prep for IBD patients; however other non-PEG-based preparations (sulphate and picosulphate-based) have now been studied in IBD.MethodsWe searched CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, MEDLINE, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to December 2024. Primary outcome was bowel prep success; secondary outcomes included tolerability, acceptability, cecal intubation rates (CIR) and safety. Pooled estimates used risk ratio (RR) and GRADE to assess evidence certainty.ResultsTen RCTs (1479 IBD patients) were included. There was no difference in prep success (relative risk [RR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.09; I 2 = 33%, 2 RCTs; moderate certainty evidence) between 2 L vs. 4 L PEG, but higher acceptability for 2 L (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59-0.80; I 2 = 18%, 2 RCTs; high certainty evidence). Low-volume non-PEG vs. PEG are probably similar for prep success (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90-1.01; I 2 = 6%,3 RCTs; moderate certainty evidence). The evidence on tolerability and acceptability was very uncertain. Subgroup analysis revealed comparable effectiveness of picosulphate-based (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78-1.01; I 2 = 0%,1 RCT) and sulphate-based preps (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91-1.05; I 2 = 28%, 2 RCTs) compared with low-volume PEG. Safety data were inconsistently reported.ConclusionsHigh-certainty evidence supports low-volume PEG as comparably successful to high-volume PEG, with higher acceptability. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates similar success between non-PEG and PEG-based preps. Both low-volume PEG and non-PEG-based preps are supported for use in IBD, broadening options beyond current ESGE guidelines.
Publication status:
Published
Peer review status:
Peer reviewed

Actions

Access Document

Files:
Publisher copy:
10.1055/a-2778-9563

Authors

More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0003-4699-2263
More by this author
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0002-2831-9406


Publisher:
Thieme Gruppe
Journal:
Endoscopy International Open More from this journal
Volume:
14
Issue:
CP
Pages:
a27789563
Publication date:
2026-02-02
Acceptance date:
2025-12-23
DOI:
EISSN:
2196-9736
ISSN:
2364-3722
Pmid:
41777342


Language:
English
Keywords:
Pubs id:
2355330
Local pid:
pubs:2355330
Source identifiers:
3844547
Deposit date:
2026-03-12
ARK identifier:
This ORA record was generated from metadata provided by an external service. It has not been edited by the ORA Team.

Terms of use


Views and Downloads






If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record

TO TOP