A randomized, controlled trial of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation for colonoscopy

Abstract Background The quality of colonoscopy is significantly influenced by the effectiveness of bowel preparation. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of bowel cleansing between a new oral sulfate solution (OSS) and standard polyethylene glycol electrolyte p...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Dong-Ling Xie, Jin-Hui Fan, Chan-Juan Fan, Ying-Hui Gao, Jian-Ping Cheng
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2025-04-01
Series:BMC Gastroenterology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-025-03885-0
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849713412760666112
author Dong-Ling Xie
Jin-Hui Fan
Chan-Juan Fan
Ying-Hui Gao
Jian-Ping Cheng
author_facet Dong-Ling Xie
Jin-Hui Fan
Chan-Juan Fan
Ying-Hui Gao
Jian-Ping Cheng
author_sort Dong-Ling Xie
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Background The quality of colonoscopy is significantly influenced by the effectiveness of bowel preparation. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of bowel cleansing between a new oral sulfate solution (OSS) and standard polyethylene glycol electrolyte powder (PEG). Methods This single center, randomized, superiority study recruited 679 outpatients who were assigned to either the new OSS group (Group A) or standard PEG group (Group B). The quality of bowel cleansing was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and compared between the two groups. Furthermore, data pertaining to the duration of bowel preparation, patient tolerability, and the occurrence of adverse events were also analyzed. Results According to BBPS scores, group A demonstrated significantly higher bowel preparation cleanliness than group B. Additionally, group A achieved superior bowel cleansing, as evidenced by a greater proportion of patients with BBPS scores ≥ 8 compared to group B (75.3% vs. 55.2%, P < 0.05). No severe adverse events were reported during examinations in either group. Conclusions The magnesium sulfate, sodium sulfate, and potassium sulfate concentrated oral solution is a novel, safe, and effective bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Trial registration This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on 20/02/2024 (clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2400081004).
format Article
id doaj-art-07337c85177e4330b13d3cecaebd6769
institution DOAJ
issn 1471-230X
language English
publishDate 2025-04-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series BMC Gastroenterology
spelling doaj-art-07337c85177e4330b13d3cecaebd67692025-08-20T03:13:58ZengBMCBMC Gastroenterology1471-230X2025-04-012511910.1186/s12876-025-03885-0A randomized, controlled trial of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation for colonoscopyDong-Ling Xie0Jin-Hui Fan1Chan-Juan Fan2Ying-Hui Gao3Jian-Ping Cheng4Department of Gastroenterology and Oncology, Civil Aviation General HospitalCivil Aviation Medicine Center, Civil Aviation Administration of ChinaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Oncology, Civil Aviation General HospitalDepartment of Gastroenterology and Oncology, Civil Aviation General HospitalDepartment of Gastroenterology and Oncology, Civil Aviation General HospitalAbstract Background The quality of colonoscopy is significantly influenced by the effectiveness of bowel preparation. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of bowel cleansing between a new oral sulfate solution (OSS) and standard polyethylene glycol electrolyte powder (PEG). Methods This single center, randomized, superiority study recruited 679 outpatients who were assigned to either the new OSS group (Group A) or standard PEG group (Group B). The quality of bowel cleansing was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and compared between the two groups. Furthermore, data pertaining to the duration of bowel preparation, patient tolerability, and the occurrence of adverse events were also analyzed. Results According to BBPS scores, group A demonstrated significantly higher bowel preparation cleanliness than group B. Additionally, group A achieved superior bowel cleansing, as evidenced by a greater proportion of patients with BBPS scores ≥ 8 compared to group B (75.3% vs. 55.2%, P < 0.05). No severe adverse events were reported during examinations in either group. Conclusions The magnesium sulfate, sodium sulfate, and potassium sulfate concentrated oral solution is a novel, safe, and effective bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Trial registration This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on 20/02/2024 (clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2400081004).https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-025-03885-0Bowel PreparationColonoscopyOral sulfate solutionPolyethylene glycolSide effects
spellingShingle Dong-Ling Xie
Jin-Hui Fan
Chan-Juan Fan
Ying-Hui Gao
Jian-Ping Cheng
A randomized, controlled trial of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation for colonoscopy
BMC Gastroenterology
Bowel Preparation
Colonoscopy
Oral sulfate solution
Polyethylene glycol
Side effects
title A randomized, controlled trial of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation for colonoscopy
title_full A randomized, controlled trial of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation for colonoscopy
title_fullStr A randomized, controlled trial of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation for colonoscopy
title_full_unstemmed A randomized, controlled trial of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation for colonoscopy
title_short A randomized, controlled trial of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation for colonoscopy
title_sort randomized controlled trial of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation for colonoscopy
topic Bowel Preparation
Colonoscopy
Oral sulfate solution
Polyethylene glycol
Side effects
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-025-03885-0
work_keys_str_mv AT donglingxie arandomizedcontrolledtrialoforalsulfatesolutionversuspolyethyleneglycolforbowelpreparationforcolonoscopy
AT jinhuifan arandomizedcontrolledtrialoforalsulfatesolutionversuspolyethyleneglycolforbowelpreparationforcolonoscopy
AT chanjuanfan arandomizedcontrolledtrialoforalsulfatesolutionversuspolyethyleneglycolforbowelpreparationforcolonoscopy
AT yinghuigao arandomizedcontrolledtrialoforalsulfatesolutionversuspolyethyleneglycolforbowelpreparationforcolonoscopy
AT jianpingcheng arandomizedcontrolledtrialoforalsulfatesolutionversuspolyethyleneglycolforbowelpreparationforcolonoscopy
AT donglingxie randomizedcontrolledtrialoforalsulfatesolutionversuspolyethyleneglycolforbowelpreparationforcolonoscopy
AT jinhuifan randomizedcontrolledtrialoforalsulfatesolutionversuspolyethyleneglycolforbowelpreparationforcolonoscopy
AT chanjuanfan randomizedcontrolledtrialoforalsulfatesolutionversuspolyethyleneglycolforbowelpreparationforcolonoscopy
AT yinghuigao randomizedcontrolledtrialoforalsulfatesolutionversuspolyethyleneglycolforbowelpreparationforcolonoscopy
AT jianpingcheng randomizedcontrolledtrialoforalsulfatesolutionversuspolyethyleneglycolforbowelpreparationforcolonoscopy