Skip to content

Study · Randomized controlled trial · 2024

5 results

Evaluation of the efficacy of polyethylene glycol in combination with different doses of linaclotide in a fractionated bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled study.

Liu WQ, Shu L, Zhou X, Wang XF, Liu S, Shi ZH

International journal of colorectal disease17 Sept 2024Cited by 8 (Europe PMC)

PMID39289199 (opens in a new tab)PMCIDPMC11408392 (opens in a new tab)DOI10.1007/s00384-024-04718-4 (opens in a new tab)PepBankPUB-39289199
Read at sourcePubMedAsk about this study
Jump to 5 results

Summary

The text of this summary is not shown here, because the article license does not allow reuse. Read it at the source (opens in a new tab)

Text rights: CC BY-NC-ND. Results still quote short attributed sentences.

Results from this study5

5 results from studies that gave the peptide. 5 results from people.

  1. 01HumanRandomized controlled trialEfficacy outcome

    In colonoscopy patients, preparation success was 92.0% with 2LPEG + 2L versus 82.3% with 2LPEG + L; reported P = 0.002 included three groups.

    In plain wordsThe higher linaclotide regimen had greater preparation success than the lower regimen with the same PEG background.

    Peptide
    Linaclotide
    Outcome
    IncreaseSuccessful bowel preparation
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    2LPEG + L
    Analysis
    Primary
    Outcome group
    Bowel Preparation · Gastrointestinal
    Studied dose
    Dose not stated

    Measurements

    Successful preparation (ITT)
    92%
    2LPEG + 2L
    Successful preparation (ITT)
    82.3%
    2LPEG + L
    Successful preparation (ITT)
    82.1%
    3LPEG
    P value (three groups)
    0.002 NA
    across three groups

    Source sentences

    Summary
    In ITT analysis, the success of preparation of the 2LPEG + 2L group was better than that of the 2LPEG + L group or the 3LPEG group (92.0% vs. 82.3% vs. 82.1%; P = 0.002).
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    The subjects were randomly assigned to the 3LPEG group, 2LPEG + 2L group, or 2LPEG + L group.
  2. 02HumanRandomized controlled trialSafety outcome

    In colonoscopy patients, adverse reactions were similar with 2LPEG + 2L and 2LPEG + L.

    In plain wordsAdverse reactions were similar between the higher and lower linaclotide regimens with the same PEG background.

    Peptide
    Linaclotide
    Outcome
    Direction not reportedAdverse reactions
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    2LPEG + L
    Analysis
    Secondary
    Outcome group
    Adverse events · Gastrointestinal
    Studied dose
    Dose not stated

    Source sentences

    Summary
    The 2LPEG + 2L group was similar to the 2LPEG + L group in terms of adverse reaction, tolerance, willingness to reuse, and sleep quality, but both were superior to the 3LPEG group.
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    The subjects were randomly assigned to the 3LPEG group, 2LPEG + 2L group, or 2LPEG + L group.
  3. 03HumanRandomized controlled trialEfficacy outcome

    In colonoscopy patients, tolerance was similar with 2LPEG + 2L and 2LPEG + L.

    In plain wordsTolerance was similar between the higher and lower linaclotide regimens with the same PEG background.

    Peptide
    Linaclotide
    Outcome
    Direction not reportedTolerance
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    2LPEG + L
    Analysis
    Secondary
    Outcome group
    Drug tolerance · Gastrointestinal
    Studied dose
    Dose not stated

    Source sentences

    Summary
    The 2LPEG + 2L group was similar to the 2LPEG + L group in terms of adverse reaction, tolerance, willingness to reuse, and sleep quality, but both were superior to the 3LPEG group.
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    The subjects were randomly assigned to the 3LPEG group, 2LPEG + 2L group, or 2LPEG + L group.
  4. 04HumanRandomized controlled trialOther

    In colonoscopy patients, willingness to reuse was similar with 2LPEG + 2L and 2LPEG + L.

    In plain wordsWillingness to reuse was similar between the higher and lower linaclotide regimens with the same PEG background.

    Peptide
    Linaclotide
    Outcome
    Direction not reportedWillingness to reuse
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    2LPEG + L
    Outcome group
    Patient-reported outcomes · Gastrointestinal
    Studied dose
    Dose not stated

    Source sentences

    Summary
    The 2LPEG + 2L group was similar to the 2LPEG + L group in terms of adverse reaction, tolerance, willingness to reuse, and sleep quality, but both were superior to the 3LPEG group.
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    The subjects were randomly assigned to the 3LPEG group, 2LPEG + 2L group, or 2LPEG + L group.
  5. 05HumanRandomized controlled trialEfficacy outcome

    In colonoscopy patients, sleep quality was similar with 2LPEG + 2L and 2LPEG + L.

    In plain wordsSleep quality was similar between the higher and lower linaclotide regimens with the same PEG background.

    Peptide
    Linaclotide
    Outcome
    Direction not reportedSleep quality
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    2LPEG + L
    Outcome group
    Sleep · Sleep
    Studied dose
    Dose not stated

    Source sentences

    Summary
    The 2LPEG + 2L group was similar to the 2LPEG + L group in terms of adverse reaction, tolerance, willingness to reuse, and sleep quality, but both were superior to the 3LPEG group.
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    The subjects were randomly assigned to the 3LPEG group, 2LPEG + 2L group, or 2LPEG + L group.

AI wrote and checked these results. AI can make mistakes, so check important results against the source.

Version history

PepBank keeps every version of the data on this study. Status changes from Retraction Watch, Europe PMC and Crossref are listed with their source.

  1. Version 2Current

    28 Oct 2026, 02:03 UTC

    Study results updated

  2. Version 1

    27 Oct 2026, 16:34 UTC

    First added · source update from Europe PMC

Subjects

Terms as the source lists them.

PepBank is a research reference. Talk to a doctor before you use any peptide.