Randomized single blind trial of two low-volume bowel preparations for screening computed tomographic colonography

Abdominal Imaging

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 48-52

  Forbes, G M ^a,b   Edwards, J T ^a   Foster, N M ^a   Wood, C J ^a   Mendelson, R M ^a,c  

^a ROYAL PERTH HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Acceptability; Adverse events; Bowel preparation; Computed tomographic colonography

Indexed keywords

BISACODYL; MACROGOL; MAGNESIUM CITRATE; PICOSULFATE SODIUM;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; SYNCOPE;

BISACODYL; CATHARTICS; COLONOGRAPHY, COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNESIUM; MALE; PICOLINES; POLYETHYLENE GLYCOLS; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD;

EID: 12844268027     PISSN: 09428925     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00261-004-0226-z     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Ferrucci JT (2001) Colon cancer screening with virtual colonoscopy: promise, polyps, politics (editorial). AJR 177:975-988
2. Lieberman DA (1995) Cost-effectiveness model for colon cancer screening. Gastroenterology 109:1781-1790
3. Mendelson RM, Foster NM, Edwards JT, et al. (2000) Virtual colonoscopy compared with conventional colonoscopy: a developing technology. Med J Aust 173:472-475
4. Fenlon HM, Nunes DP, Schroy PC, et al. (1999) A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. N Engl J Med 341:1496-1503
5. Macari M, Lavelle M, Pedrosa I, et al. (2001) Effects of different bowel preparations on residual fluid at CT colonography. Radiology 218:274-277
6. Pavone P, Luccichenti G, Cademartiri F (2001) Improving the results of virtual colonoscopy: what the future will bring. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 22:400-402
7. Foster NM, Zimmerman MJ (2000) Prospective randomised comparison of colonlytely with picolax for bowel preparation for colonoscopy [abstract]. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 15:(suppl)J81
8. Edwards JT, Mendelson RM, Fritschi L, et al. (2003) Colorectal neoplasia screening by virtual colonoscopy in average-risk asymptomatic subjects: a community based study. Radiology 2004; 230:459-464
9. Hsu C-W, Imperiale TF (1998) Meta-analysis and cost comparison of polyethylene glycol lavage versus sodium phosphate for colonoscopy practice. Gastrointest Endosc 48:276-282
10. Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee (2002) Electrolyte disturbance with oral phosphate bowel preparations. Aust Adv Drug React Bull 21:1
11. UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial Investigators (2002) Single flexible sigmoidoscopy screening to prevent colored al cancer: baseline findings of a UK multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 359:1291-1300
12. Callstrom MR, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG, et al. (2001) CT colonography without cathartic preparation: feasibility study. Radiology 219:693-698