Colonoscopy for screening, surveillance, or diagnosis of colorectal cancer Surgery
Conditions
Interventions
Blinding the colonoscopists to the type of bowel preparation given prior to colonoscopy - oral sodium phosphate versus polyethylene glycol
Sponsors
State University of New York at Buffalo (USA)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: All outpatient adults (18-65 years old) undergoing colonoscopy for screening, surveillance, or diagnosis of colorectal cancer at the Western NY Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Buffalo between May 2003 and August 2004 who had a basic metabolic profile blood test within one year prior to enrollment were eligible for this study
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: Patients were not eligible for the study if any of the following was present: 1. Evidence of renal insufficiency (creatinine >2.0 mg/dl) 2. Evidence of electrolyte abnormalities 3. Cardiovascular disease, including uncontrolled congestive heart failure (American Heart Association Functional Class III or IV), unstable angina, or myocardial infarction, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, cardiac surgery within the past 3 months 4. Inflammatory bowel disease 5. Colon disease, including chronic constipation (one year, ileus and/or acute obstruction, hypomotility syndrome, megacolon, idiopathic pseudo-obstruction, or previous colonic surgery 6. Pregnant or breastfeeding female A meta-analysis that included randomised controlled trials comparing the two bowel preparations showed that clinical adverse effects were comparable in frequency when patients are carefully selected
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| The primary outcome of this study is to determine the proportion of correct estimation of the bowel preparation by all endoscopists combined | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Secondary outcomes are the proportion of correct estimations by individual endoscopists. We are also interested in the distinguishing features that endoscopists reported as reasons for their judgments. Other secondary aims are the comparison of tolerability, safety, and overall quality of colon cleansing for the two bowel preparations. | — |
Countries
United States of America
Outcome results
None listed