Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Impact of Bowel Cleansing on Polyp and Adenoma Detection Rate: Post-Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Impact of Bowel Cleansing on Polyp and Adenoma Detection Rate: Post-Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial
Do you wish to request the book?
Impact of Bowel Cleansing on Polyp and Adenoma Detection Rate: Post-Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Impact of Bowel Cleansing on Polyp and Adenoma Detection Rate: Post-Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial
2025
Overview
Objectives: To assess the impact of bowel cleansing quality on polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) and explore predictors of lesion detection rate in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Methods: This is a post-hoc analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing 1L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (1L PEG+ASC) vs. 4L PEG as bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Results: PDR was significantly higher (35.6% vs. 18.5%, p = 0.013), and ADR was higher even if not significantly (25.6% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.153) in patients with Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) ≥6 over BBPS <6. Comparing patients with BBPS = 9 over BBPS = 7–8, no significant differences were found in PDR (34.5% vs. 38.4%, p = 0.483) nor ADR (24.1% vs. 27.2%, p = 0.553). At multivariable regression analysis, older age (OR = 1.042, 95%CI = 1.021–1.063; p < 0.001), shorter intubation time (OR = 0.891, 95%CI = 0.816–0.972; p = 0.010), higher withdrawal time (OR = 1.171, 95%CI = 1.094–1.253; p < 0.001) and full consumption of the first dose (OR = 8.368, 95%CI = 1.025–68.331; p = 0.047) were independently associated with ADR. Conclusions: This post-hoc analysis of a RCT showed that excellent cleansing (BBPS = 9) over high-quality cleansing (BBPS = 7–8) does not significantly improve PDR or ADR. Neither cleansing success nor preparation types were independently associated with ADR. Compliance with bowel preparation, timing of colonoscopy and withdrawal time are key elements for adequate ADR with potential implications for reducing interval colorectal cancer.
