Patients who had undergone segmental colectomy were excluded. In total, 580 eligible procedures were performed. 251 patients received Moviprep;

326 were given senna and Citramag. Bowel cleansing with Moviprep was statistically superior in each assessed segment of the colon as well as overall (mean score 6.56, p=0.027). Patients given Moviprep were more likely to have a perfect preparation score of 9 (p<0.001). The reasons for failure in patients who were not fully find more imaged were recorded. 3 procedures were aborted due to poor bowel preparation; all of these patients received Moviprep (p=0.08).The patient-assessed taste of Moviprep was significantly worse than senna and Citramag (P<0.001). There was no significant difference between both groups with regards to age, sex or percentage of patients who finished the preparation (p=0.14). These data - the largest in the literature comparing these two preparations - show that both produce acceptably high levels of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy. Moviprep ISRIB in vivo appears to cleanse slightly better throughout the colon but was judged by patients to be less palatable. Mean Boston Bowel

Preparation Scores “
“Colonoscopy quality begins with a clean colon. Inadequate bowel cleansing can result in missed lesions, aborted procedures, increased patient’s discomfort, procedural time and, potentially, complications. As for patients’ tolerability, one of the most suitable regimen is to split the dose of laxative between the day before and the morning of colonoscopy. Nevertheless, even if different schemes and cleansing methods are available, there is no clearcut superiority of any over the otherTo evaluate the differences in colon cleansing comparing the split vs. non split regimen, accounting for different

types and doses of laxative usedSearch of full-text articles in MEDLINE, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, Current Contents and Cochrane Library databases was associated with hand-search of relevant journal published articles and fully recursive search of reference lists of the original studies. Articles were reviewed separately by 2 authors and those fulfilling the inclusion Protein kinase N1 criteria were selected for further analysis. Decisions regarding inclusion of articles and data extraction were reached by consensus. If there was disagreement, the papers were jointly evaluated to solve the discrepancy. Quality of bowel cleansing was graded as “excellent or good” or “poor or inadequate” according to different bowel cleansing scales used in the different papersOf the 1385 potentially relevant papers identified by the preliminary search, a total of 26 papers, comparing 46 treatment arms, fulfilled the inclusion criteria for an overall 6808 patients and were included in the meta-analysis.