TABLE 5.

Randomized trials comparing sodium picosulphate plus magnesium citrate (SPMC) with polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (PEG-ASC).

Authors	Ref.	Country	Design	#pts (ITT/PP)	SPMC (ITT/PP)	PEG-ASC (ITT/PP)	Bowel cleansing	Patients compliance	Patients acceptance
Manes et al. (11)	11	Italy	Multicenter	293/285	145/140	148/145	75.7% SPMC Vs. 76.5% PEG-ASC	83.6% SPMC Vs. 77.9% PEG-ASC	*97.8% SPMC Vs. 83.4% PEG-ASC
Choi et al. (12)	12	South Korea	Single-center	220/200	110/102	110/98	88.2% SPMC Vs. 85.7% PEG-ASC	98% SPMC Vs. 99% PEG-ASC	83.3% SPMC Vs. 85.7% PEG-ASC
Jeon et al. (13)	13	South Korea	Single-center	388/356	193/165	195/191	90.3% SPMC Vs. 89.5% PEG-ASC	*87% SPMC Vs. 99% PEG-ASC	92.1% SPMC Vs. 90.6% PEG-ASC
Sahebally et al. (14)	14	Ireland	Single-center	130/130	64/64	66/66	75% SPMC Vs. 1.8% PEG-ASC	93.8% SPMC Vs. 92.4% PEG-ASC	*95.3% SPMC Vs. 84.9% PEG-ASC
Worthington et al. (15)	15	UK	Single-center	70/65	33/33	32/30	72.7% SPMC Vs. 84.4% PEG-ASC	100% SPMC Vs. 96.9% PEG-ASC	NR% SPMC Vs. NR% PEG-ASC
Yoo et al. (16)	16	South Korea	Single-center	200/200	100/100	100/100	80% SPMC Vs. 82% PEG-ASC	94% SPMC Vs. 88% PEG-ASC	NR% SPMC Vs. NR% PEG-ASC
Seo et al. (17)	17	South Korea	Single-center	223/223	114/114	109/109	93.8% SPMC Vs. 93.5% PEG-ASC	*84.2% SPMC Vs. 55.9% PEG-ASC	*92.1% SPMC Vs. 83.4% PEG-ASC
Mathus-Vliegen et al. (18)	18	Netherlands	Single-center	354/337	177/171	177/166	75.8% SPMC Vs. 81.4% PEG-ASC	NR% SPMC Vs. NR% PEG-ASC	94% SPMC Vs. 60% PEG-ASC
D’Angelo et al.		Italy	Multicenter	550/522	271/254	279/268	95.7% SPMC Vs. 94.4% PEG-ASC	90.1% SPMC Vs. 93.4% PEG-ASC	*92.8% SPMC Vs. 81.3% PEG-ASC

ITT = number of randomized patients (intention to treat); PP = number of treated patients (per protocol).

NR = % not reported in full text; *p < 0.05.