Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sodium phosphate versus polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy bowel preparation: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Adequate bowel cleansing is of great importance for a high-quality colonoscopy examination. Nevertheless, whether sodium phosphate or polyethylene glycol is a gold standard agent for bowel preparation is still under debate. In consideration of the clinical needs, we thus performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials concerning the comparison between both regimens. The efficacy, safety and acceptability of each regimen are major indicators to measure and appraise.

Methods

By searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases, 15 original trials published from 2000 to 2014 were included as eligible studies. We carried out data extraction and subsequent pooling analysis for each indicator in a standard manner. Sensitivity analysis was performed by elimination of low-quality trials, while a funnel plot and Egger’s test were employed to analyze the publication bias across studies.

Results

Our pooling analysis revealed that patients undergoing sodium phosphate as a cleansing agent displayed better acceptability, compliance, cleansing scores, preparation taste, polyp detection rate and less adverse effects including nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain (P < 0.05). In terms of procedure time, adequate preparation rate and electrolyte concentration, there was no significant difference between both regimens (P > 0.05). The pooling analysis offered stable conclusions which were verified by our sensitivity analysis. There was no publication bias across studies as a symmetric funnel plot was demonstrated and the result of Egger’s test was P = 0.56.

Conclusions

Regarding preparation efficacy, safety and acceptability, sodium phosphate was a better agent than polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy bowel cleansing, with its advantages of higher efficacy, better tolerability and acceptability as well as comparable safety.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2015) Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 65(1):5–29. doi:10.3322/caac.21254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Altobelli E, Lattanzi A, Paduano R, Varassi G, di Orio F (2014) Colorectal cancer prevention in Europe: burden of disease and status of screening programs. Prev Med 62:132–141. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.02.010

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ko HJ, Youn CH (2012) Determination of the beginning age for colonoscopic screening among colonoscopy-naive individuals. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 36(4):384–390. doi:10.1016/j.clinre.2012.01.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Choi Y, Choi HS, Jeon WK, Kim BI, Park DI, Cho YK, Kim HJ, Park JH, Sohn CI (2012) Optimal number of endoscopic biopsies in diagnosis of advanced gastric and colorectal cancer. J Korean Med Sci 27(1):36–39. doi:10.3346/jkms.2012.27.1.36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Harewood GC, Sharma VK, de Garmo P (2003) Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 58(1):76–79. doi:10.1067/mge.2003.294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, Pike IM, Adler DG, Fennerty MB, Lieb JN, Park WG, Rizk MK, Sawhney MS, Shaheen NJ, Wani S, Weinberg DS (2015) Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 81(1):31–53. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.058

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Davis GR, Santa AC, Morawski SG, Fordtran JS (1980) Development of a lavage solution associated with minimal water and electrolyte absorption or secretion. Gastroenterology 78(5 Pt 1):991–995

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kastenberg D, Chasen R, Choudhary C, Riff D, Steinberg S, Weiss E, Wruble L (2001) Efficacy and safety of sodium phosphate tablets compared with PEG solution in colon cleansing: two identically designed, randomized, controlled, parallel group, multicenter phase III trials. Gastrointest Endosc 54(6):705–713

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rostom A, Jolicoeur E, Dube C, Gregoire S, Patel D, Saloojee N, Lowe C (2006) A randomized prospective trial comparing different regimens of oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol-based lavage solution in the preparation of patients for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 64(4):544–552. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2005.09.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Seo EH, Kim TO, Kim TG, Joo HR, Park MJ, Park J, Park SH, Yang SY, Moon YS (2011) Efficacy and tolerability of split-dose PEG compared with split-dose aqueous sodium phosphate for outpatient colonoscopy: a randomized, controlled trial. Dig Dis Sci 56(10):2963–2971. doi:10.1007/s10620-011-1772-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Clark HD, Wells GA, Huet C, McAlister FA, Salmi LR, Fergusson D, Laupacis A (1999) Assessing the quality of randomized trials: reliability of the Jadad scale. Control Clin Trials 20(5):448–452

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-5-13

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Jung YS, Lee CK, Kim HJ, Eun CS, Han DS, Park DI (2014) Randomized controlled trial of sodium phosphate tablets versus polyethylene glycol solution for colonoscopy bowel cleansing. World J Gastroenterol 20(42):15845–15851. doi:10.3748/wjg.v20.i42.15845

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Kumagai E, Shibuya T, Makino M, Murakami T, Takashima S, Ritsuno H, Ueyama H, Kodani T, Sasaki H, Matsumoto K, Sakamoto N, Osada T, Nagahara A, Ogihara T, Watanabe S (2014) A randomized prospective study of bowel preparation for colonoscopy with low-dose sodium phosphate tablets versus polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2014:879749. doi:10.1155/2014/879749

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee SH, Lee DJ, Kim KM, Seo SW, Kang JK, Lee EH, Lee DR (2014) Comparison of the efficacy and safety of sodium phosphate tablets and polyethylene glycol solution for bowel cleansing in healthy Korean adults. Yonsei Med J 55(6):1542–1555. doi:10.3349/ymj.2014.55.6.1542

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Kambe H, Yamaji Y, Sugimoto T, Yamada A, Watabe H, Yoshida H, Omata M, Koike K (2012) A randomized controlled trial of sodium phosphate tablets and polyethylene glycol solution for polyp detection. J Dig Dis 13(7):374–380. doi:10.1111/j.1751-2980.2012.00588.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jansen SV, Goedhard JG, Winkens B, van Deursen CT (2011) Preparation before colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial comparing different regimes. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 23(10):897–902. doi:10.1097/MEG.0b013e32834a3444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kao D, Lalor E, Sandha G, Fedorak RN, van der Knoop B, Doornweerd S, van Kooten H, Schreuders E, Midodzi W, Veldhuyzen VZS (2011) A randomized controlled trial of four precolonoscopy bowel cleansing regimens. Can J Gastroenterol 25(12):657–662

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Schanz S, Kruis W, Mickisch O, Kuppers B, Berg P, Frick B, Heiland G, Huppe D, Schenck B, Horstkotte H, Winkler A (2008) Bowel preparation for colonoscopy with sodium phosphate solution versus polyethylene glycol-based lavage: a multicenter trial. Diagn Ther Endosc 2008:713521. doi:10.1155/2008/713521

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Kastenberg D, Barish C, Burack H, Dalke DD, Duckor S, Putnam W, Valenzuela G (2007) Tolerability and patient acceptance of sodium phosphate tablets compared with 4-L PEG solution in colon cleansing: combined results of 2 identically designed, randomized, controlled, parallel group, multicenter phase 3 trials. J Clin Gastroenterol 41(1):54–61. doi:10.1097/01.mcg.0000212662.66644.76

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Parra-Blanco A, Nicolas-Perez D, Gimeno-Garcia A, Grosso B, Jimenez A, Ortega J, Quintero E (2006) The timing of bowel preparation before colonoscopy determines the quality of cleansing, and is a significant factor contributing to the detection of flat lesions: a randomized study. World J Gastroenterol 12(38):6161–6166

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Mathus-Vliegen EM, Kemble UM (2006) A prospective randomized blinded comparison of sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution for safe bowel cleansing. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 23(4):543–552. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.02777.x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Law WL, Choi HK, Chu KW, Ho JW, Wong L (2004) Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial comparing polyethylene glycol solution, one dose and two doses of oral sodium phosphate solution. Asian J Surg 27(2):120–124. doi:10.1016/S1015-9584(09)60324-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ell C, Fischbach W, Keller R, Dehe M, Mayer G, Schneider B, Albrecht U, Schuette W (2003) A randomized, blinded, prospective trial to compare the safety and efficacy of three bowel-cleansing solutions for colonoscopy (HSG-01*). Endoscopy 35(4):300–304. doi:10.1055/s-2003-38150

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Poon CM, Lee DW, Mak SK, Ko CW, Chan KC, Chan KW, Sin KS, Chan AC (2002) Two liters of polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution versus sodium phosphate as bowel cleansing regimen for colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 34(7):560–563. doi:10.1055/s-2002-33207

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Moon W (2013) Optimal and safe bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Clin Endosc 46(3):219–223. doi:10.5946/ce.2013.46.3.219

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Hassan C, Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF, Polkowski M, Rembacken B, Saunders B, Benamouzig R, Holme O, Green S, Kuiper T, Marmo R, Omar M, Petruzziello L, Spada C, Zullo A, Dumonceau JM (2013) Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European society of gastrointestinal endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 45(2):142–150. doi:10.1055/s-0032-1326186

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Martens P, Bisschops R (2014) Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: efficacy, tolerability and safety. Acta Gastroenterol Belg 77(2):249–255

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Belsey J, Epstein O, Heresbach D (2009) Systematic review: adverse event reports for oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 29(1):15–28. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03837.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lichtenstein G (2009) Bowel preparations for colonoscopy: a review. Am J Health Syst Pharm 66(1):27–37. doi:10.2146/ajhp080084

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bae SE, Kim KJ, Eum JB, Yang DH, Ye BD, Byeon JS, Myung SJ, Yang SK, Kim JH (2013) A comparison of 2 L of polyethylene glycol and 45 mL of sodium phosphate versus 4 L of polyethylene glycol for bowel cleansing: a prospective randomized trial. Gut Liver 7(4):423–429. doi:10.5009/gnl.2013.7.4.423

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Lee JW, Kim NY, Cha BH, Lee BH, Hwang TJ, Jeong YJ, Choi TH, Kim HS, Myung HJ, Kim JE, Jang JH, Kim YM, Kim JY, Park SW, Park HK, Suh SC, Seo PJ, Song JC, Shin CM, Eum YO, Kwon JH, Kim JJ, Song BJ, Park YS, Lee DH (2010) Comparison between conventional 4 L polyethylene glycol and combination of 2 L polyethylene glycol and sodium phosphate solution as colonoscopy preparation. Korean J Gastroenterol 56(5):299–306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank all participants in our department for methodological assistance.

Funding

This article is supported by Research Fund of Public Welfare in Health Industry, Health and Family Plan Committee of China (No. 201402015).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No. 1277 Jiefang Avenue, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China

    Ji Cheng, Kaixiong Tao, Xiaoming Shuai & Jinbo Gao

Authors
  1. Ji Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kaixiong Tao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiaoming Shuai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jinbo Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jinbo Gao.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Ji Cheng, Kaixiong Tao, Xiaoming Shuai and Jinbo Gao declare that we have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cheng, J., Tao, K., Shuai, X. et al. Sodium phosphate versus polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy bowel preparation: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc 30, 4033–4041 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4716-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4716-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation