Impact of low-volume versus standard-volume bowel preparation on participation in primary screening colonoscopy: a randomized health services study

Participation in Competing Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Health Services Study (PICCOLINO Study)

“…Sample size calculations were determined a priori to compare screening process completion across groups. The predicted screening process completion rates were 17%, 20%, and 25% for the control (current completion rates), 17 sequential, and choice groups, respectively. The smallest difference between these predicted completion rates was 3% (20% and 17%), which was considered the smallest clinically meaningful increase.…”

“…Randomized trials have already shown that FIT testing achieves a higher participation in CRC screening compared with colonoscopy, with an absolute increase in uptake rates ranging from 5.8% to 16.1%. [16][17][18][19] However, there is only modest evidence for strategies that offer a combination of screening modalities. The report of participation and neoplasia yield of an ongoing population-based program in Italy, in which individuals who did not respond to an initial screening via flexible sigmoidoscopy were offered FIT kits, showed that 25% of nonresponders decided to proceed with the FIT alternative.…”

Preparo intestinal com picossulfato de sódio ou polietilenoglicol para colonoscopia eletiva em pacientes adultos ambulatoriais: revisão sistemática e metanálise

“…Vinte e dois estudos avaliaram a eficácia do preparo intestinal medida por cinco diferentes escalas de preparo: escala de 4 categorias (Regev et al, 1998;Quaresma et al, 2018), escala de Aronchick (Katz et al, 2013;Rex et al, 2013;Kim et al, 2014a;Kim et al, 2014b;Yoo et al, 2015;Kojecky et al, 2018;Seo et al, 2018;Kojecky et al, 2019), escala de preparo intestinal de Boston (Manes et al, 2013;Jeon et al, 2015;Kim et al, 2015;Munsterman et al, 2015;Yoo et al, 2015;Muñoz et al, 2018;Mathus-Vliegen et al, 2018;Pisera et al, 2019), escala de…”

“…A tolerabilidade foi avaliada em 13 estudos (Regev et al, 1998;Lawrance et al, 2011;Katz et al, 2013;Manes et al, 2013;Rex et al, 2013;Kang et al, 2014;Kim et al, 2014a;Kim et al, 2014b;Leitao et al, 2014;Jeon et al, 2015;Kim et al, 2015;Seo et al, 2018;Pisera et al, 2019), a taxa de eventos adversos em 15 estudos (Regev et al, 1998;Katz et al, 2013;Manes et al, 2013;Rex et al, 2013;Kang et al, 2014;Leitao et al, 2014;Kim et al, 2014a;Jeon et al, 2015;Kim et al, 2015;Pohl et al, 2015;Seo et al, 2018;Mathus-Vliegen et al, 2018), taxa de detecção de pólipos em sete (Manes et al, 2013;Kang et al, 2014;Kim et al, 2014;Kim et al, 2014;Leitao et al, 2014;Jeon et al, 2015;Pohl et al, 2015;Seo et al, 2018;Pisera et al, 2019) e taxa de detecção de adenoma em cinco estudos (Kang et al, 2014;Kim et al, 2014a;Jeon et al, 2015;Pohl et al, 2015;Yoo et al, 2015;Muñoz et al, 2018;Seo et al, 2018;…”

“…Dezesseis estudos, correspondendo a dezenove comparações, demonstraram eficácia semelhante entre o PSCM e o PEG para o preparo intestinal (Regev et al, 1998;Kao et al, 2011;Lawrance et al, 2011;Katz et al, 2013;Manes et al, 2013;Kang et al, 2014;Kim et al, 2014b;Jeon et al, 2015;Kim et al, 2015;Kojecky et al, 2018;Mathus-Vliegen et al, 2018;Muñoz et al, 2018;Seo et al, 2018;Kojecky et al, 2019). Enquanto em dois estudos o PSCM foi superior ao PEG para o preparo intestinal (Rex et al, 2013;Kim et al, 2014a), em quatro o PEG foi superior ao PSCM (Pohl et al, 2015;Quaresma et al, 2018;Pisera et al, 2019;Rostom et al, 2019).…”