Table 3.
Comparing Ottawa bowel preparation scores between traditional and split-dose P/MC bowel preparations in individual and pooled prospective trials and clinical practice diary studies
| Type | Study | Traditional dose | Split-dose | Difference | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Mean (95% CI) | n | Mean (95% CI) | Mean (95% CI) | df* | P value | ||
| Prospective trials |
(Flemming et al., 2012) | 109 | 5.5 (5.0 to 6.0) | 113 | 4.1 (3.6 to 4.5) | 1.5 (0.8 to 2.1) | 220 | <0.0001 |
| (Fowler et al., 2009) | 24 | 4.9 (3.9 to 6.0) | 23 | 5.0 (3.9 to 6.1) | -0.1 (-1.6 to 1.3) | 45 | 0.863 | |
| (Melicharkova et al., 2013) | 56 | 4.7 (4.0 to 5.5) | 36 | 4.4 (3.4 to 5.3) | 0.3 (-0.8 to 1.5) | 90 | 0.569 | |
| (Hookey & Vanner, 2009) | 100 | 5.0 (4.5 to 5.5) | ||||||
| Pooled Mixed model | 5.1 (4.5 to 5.7) | 4.3 (3.6 to 5.0) | 0.8 (-0.1 to 1.6) | 4.4 | 0.080 | |||
| Clinical practice diary studies |
(Arya et al., 2014) | 216 | 6.1 (5.8 to 6.5) | 149 | 6.2 (5.7 to 6.6) | 0.0 (-0.6 to 0.5) | 363 | 0.927 |
| (Vanner & Hookey, 2011) | 34 | 5.2 (4.1 to 6.3) | 61 | 5.0 (4.3 to 5.7) | 0.3 (-0.9 to 1.5) | 93 | 0.663 | |
| Pooled Mixed model | 5.7 (0.7 to 11.2) | 5.6 (-0.1 to 11.3) | 0.0 (-0.5 to 0.7) | 458 | 0.860 | |||
| (Prospective trials) – (Clinical practice studies) adjusted for age, sex, and indication | 0.7 (0.4 to -1.7) | 1.4 (0.3 to 2.5) | 0.7 (-1.2 to 2.6) | 0.266 | ||||
*df, degrees of freedom.