***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: OBJECTIVE : Inadequate preparation of the bowel for colonoscopy can result in both missed pathological lesions and cancelled procedures . We looked prospect ively at the quality of colonic preparation and evaluated potential associations between specific patient characteristics and inadequate colonic preparation . METHODS : Data were gathered on consecutive patients presenting for colonoscopy who received either a polyethylene glycol lavage or oral sodium phosphate bowel preparation .  Patient demographic and medical history information was gathered before scheduled colonoscopy . The endoscopist evaluated the preparation quality during the procedure . Complete data were gathered on 649 of 714 eligible patients ( 90.8 % ) . Possible predictors of inadequate colonic preparation were analyzed using univariate statistics and multivariate logistic regression models . RESULTS : An inadequate colonic preparation was reported in 21.7 % of observed colonoscopies . Only 18 % of patients with an inadequate colonic preparation reported a failure to adequately follow preparation instructions . A later colonoscopy starting time , a reported failure to follow preparation instructions , inpatient status , a procedural indication of constipation , taking tricyclic antidepressants , male gender , and a history of cirrhosis , stroke or dementia were all independent predictors of an inadequate colon preparation ( all p < 0.05 ) . A procedural indication of previous polypectomy was a negative predictor of inadequate colonic preparation ( p < 0.05 ) . CONCLUSION : Several patient characteristics were significantly associated with colonic preparation quality independent of preparation type , compliance with preparation instructions , and procedure starting time . This information may help to identify patients at an increased risk for inadequate colonic preparation for whom alternative preparation protocol s would be appropriate OBJECTIVES : Preparation regimens for morning colonoscopy are suboptimal . The aim of this study was to test the efficacy and tolerance of a split-dose magnesium citrate – low-volume ( 2 liters ) polyethylene glycol ( PEG ) regimen for morning colonoscopy . METHODS : A total of 232 patients were r and omly assigned to receive 4 liters PEG ( day before procedure ; group 1 , n=79 ) , 2 liters PEG ( day before procedure ) followed by another 2 liters PEG ( day of procedure ; group 2 , n=80 ) , or magnesium citrate ( 250 ml , day before procedure ) followed by 2 liters PEG ( day of procedure ; group 3 , n=73 ) . The quality of bowel cleansing , tolerability , and adverse effects in group 3 were compared with those in groups 1 and 2 . RESULTS : Satisfactory bowel preparation was more frequently reported for group 3 than for group 1 ( 75 % vs. 51 % , P=0.001 ) and was similar to that for group 2 ( 75 % vs. 76 % , P=0.896 ) . A significantly greater proportion of patients in group 3 grade d their overall satisfaction as satisfactory compared with group 1 ( 43 % vs. 23 % , P=0.010 ) , and the proportion was similar to that in group 2 ( 43 % vs. 35 % , P=0.133 ) . Patients in group 3 were more willing to repeat the same preparation regimen , if necessary , than those in group 1 ( 93 % vs. 48 % , P<0.001 ) or group 2 ( 93 % vs. 62 % , P<0.001 ) . CONCLUSIONS : The split-dose magnesium citrate – low-volume ( 2 liters ) PEG regimen was more efficient than and preferred to the conventional regimen of 4 liters of PEG , and it was equally efficient as , but , again , preferred to the split-dose ( 2 + 2 liters ) regimen for morning colonoscopy BACKGROUND Quality of bowel cleansing in hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy  is often unsatisfactory . No study has investigated the inpatient or outpatient setting as cause of inadequate cleansing . AIMS To assess degree of bowel cleansing  in in patients and out patients and to identify possible predictors of poor bowel preparation in the two population s. METHODS Prospect i ve multicentre study on consecutive colonoscopies in 25 regional endoscopy units . Univariate and multivariate analysis with odds ratio estimation were performed . RESULTS Data from 3276 colonoscopies were analyzed ( 2178 out patients , 1098 in patients ) .  Incomplete colonoscopy due to inadequate cleansing was recorded in 369 patients ( 11.2 % ) . There was no significant difference in bowel cleansing rates between in- and out patients in both colonic segments . In the overall population , independent predictors of inadequate cleansing both at the level of right and left colon were : male gender ( odds ratio , 1.20 [ 1.02 - 1.43 ] and 1.27 [ 1.05 - 1.53 ] ) , diabetes mellitus ( odds ratio , 2.35 [ 1.68 - 3.29 ] and 2.12 [ 1.47 - 3.05 ] ) , chronic constipation ( odds ratio , 1.60 [ 1.30 - 1.97 ] and 1.55 [ 1.23 - 1.94 ] ) , incomplete purge intake ( odds ratio , 2.36 [ 1.90 - 2.94 ] and 2.11 [ 1.68 - 2.65 ] ) and a runway time > 12h ( odds ratio , 3.36 [ 2.40 - 4.72 ] and 2.53 [ 1.74 - 3.67 ] ) . CONCLUSIONS We found no difference in the rate of inadequate bowel preparation between hospitalized patients and out patients Background / Aims . The preparation-to-colonoscopy ( PC ) interval is one of several important factors for the bowel preparation . Short message service ( SMS ) reminder from a cellular phone has been suggested to improve compliance in various medical situations . We evaluated the effectiveness of SMS reminders to assure the PC interval for colonoscopy . Methodology . This prospect i ve r and omized study was investigator blinded . In the No-SMS group , patients took the first 2 L polyethylene glycol ( PEG ) between 6 and 8 PM on the day before colonoscopy and the second 2 L PEG approximately 6 hours before the colonoscopy without SMS . In the SMS group , patients took first 2 L PEG in the same manner as the No-SMS group and the second 2 L PEG after receiving an SMS 6 hours before the colonoscopy . Results . The SMS group had a lower score than the No-SMS group , according to the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale ( P < 0.001 ) . Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that compliance with diet instructions ( odds ratio ( OR ) 2.109 ; 95 % confidence interval ( CI ) , 1.11–3.99 , P = 0.022 ) and intervention using SMS ( ( OR ) 2.329 ; 95 % ( CI ) , 1.34–4.02 , P = 0.002 ) were the independent significant factors for satisfactory bowel preparation . Conclusions . An SMS reminder to assure PC interval improved the bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy with bowel preparation BACKGROUND Several factors influence bowel preparation quality . Recent studies have indicated that the time interval between bowel preparation and the start of colonoscopy is also important in determining bowel preparation quality . OBJECTIVE To evaluate the influence of the preparation-to-colonoscopy ( PC ) interval ( the interval of time between the last polyethylene glycol dose ingestion and the start of the colonoscopy ) on bowel preparation quality in the split-dose method for colonoscopy . DESIGN Prospect i ve observational study . SETTING University medical center . PATIENTS A total of 366 consecutive out patients undergoing colonoscopy .  INTERVENTION Split-dose bowel preparation and colonoscopy . MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS The quality of bowel preparation was assessed by using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale according to the PC interval , and other factors that might influence bowel preparation quality were analyzed . RESULTS Colonoscopies with a PC interval of 3 to 5 hours had the best bowel preparation quality score in the whole , right , mid , and rectosigmoid colon according to the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale . In multivariate analysis , the PC interval ( odds ratio [ OR ] 1.85 ; 95 % CI , 1.18 - 2.86 ) , the amount of PEG ingested ( OR 4.34 ; 95 % CI , 1.08 - 16.66 ) , and compliance with diet instructions ( OR 2.22l 95 % CI , 1.33 - 3.70 ) were significant contributors to satisfactory bowel preparation . LIMITATIONS Nonr and omized controlled , single-center trial . CONCLUSIONS The optimal time interval between the last dose of the agent and the start of colonoscopy is one of the important factors to determine satisfactory bowel preparation quality in split-dose polyethylene glycol bowel preparation BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS High quality bowel preparation is essential for successful colonoscopy . This study aim ed to assess the impact of reinforced education by telephone or short message service ( SMS ) on the quality of bowel preparation . PATIENTS AND METHODS A prospect i ve , endoscopist-blinded , r and omized , controlled study was conducted . Reinforced education groups received additional education via reminders by telephone or SMS 2 days before colonoscopy . The primary outcome was the quality of the bowel preparation according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale ( BBPS ) . The secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate ( PDR ) , adenoma detection rate ( ADR ) , tolerance , and subjective feelings of patients . RESULTS A total of 390 patients were included .  Total BBPS score was significantly higher in the reinforced education groups than in the control group ( mean [ SD ] telephone vs. CONTROL 7.1 [ 1.2 ] vs. 6.3 [ 1.4 ] , P < 0.001 ; SMS vs. CONTROL 6.8 [ 1.3 ] vs. 6.3 [ 1.4 ] , P = 0.027 ) . Between the two interventions , there was no significant difference in total BBPS score . PDR and ADR were not different among groups . Reinforced education groups showed lower anxiety and better tolerance compared with controls . A preparation-to-colonoscopy time of > 6 hours and < 80 % of the purgative ingested were independent factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation ( BBPS < 5 ) , whereas re-education by telephone was inversely related to inadequate bowel preparation . CONCLUSION SMS was the optimal education modality , and was as effective as telephone reminders for the quality of bowel preparation . A reinforced educational approach via telephone or SMS should be individualized , depending on the re source availability of each clinical practice . TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinical Trials.gov ( NCT01911052 ) Background : The aim of this prospect i ve study was to compare the efficacy and patient compliance of an oral high dose of bisacodyl plus water lavage and oral sodium phosphate in adults undergoing elective colonoscopy . Methods : A total of 276 patients were r and omized to receive an oral high‐dose bisacodyl preparation ( 6 tablets of 5 mg bisacodyl ) plus water lavage ( 2 L of water ) or an oral sodium phosphate ( NaP ) preparation ( 90 mL in divided doses ) . All endoscopic procedures were conducted in the afternoon . The endoscopist was blinded to the preparation the patient had received and grade d the quality of colon cleansing as excellent , good , fair , poor , or failed . Patients ' demographic data , indications for the procedure , and colonoscopic findings were recorded and compared . Results : Significantly improved ( p < 0.001 ) bowel preparation  after NaP compared with bisacodyl plus water lavage was reported . The completion rate of colonoscopy was significantly lower ( p < 0.001 ) in the bisacodyl group ( 70.6 % ) than in the NaP group ( 92.9 % ) . The detection of polyps was significantly increased ( p = 0.017 ) in the NaP group ( 43.1 % ) compared with the bisacodyl group ( 27.1 % ) . A procedural indication of constipation was an independent predictor of failed preparation in the bisacodyl group ( odds ratio , 4.8 ; 95 % confidence interval , 1.9–12.0 ; p < 0.001 ) . Conclusion : The quality of bowel preparation with oral NaP was better than that with bisacodyl plus water lavage AIM To examine effects of chronic methadone usage on bowel visualization , preparation , and repeat colonoscopy . METHODS In-patient colonoscopy reports from October , 2004 to May , 2009 for methadone dependent ( MD ) patients were retrospectively evaluated and compared to matched opioid naive controls ( C ) . Strict criteria were applied to exclude patients with risk factors known to cause constipation or gastric dysmotility .  Colonoscopy reports of all eligible patients were analyzed for degree of bowel visualization , assessment of bowel preparation ( good , fair , or poor ) , and whether a repeat colonoscopy  was required . Bowel visualization was scored on a 4 point scale based on multiple prior studies : excellent = 1 , good =  
    Output:
    
Conclusions In a systematic review and meta‐ analysis , we found no single patient‐related factor to be solely associated with inadequate bowel preparation .
Health conditions and use of some medications appear to be stronger predictors than sociodemographic characteristics