Gastroenterology Research and Practice / 2016 / Article / Tab 5 / Review Article
Optimal Bowel Preparation for Video Capsule Endoscopy Table 5 Studies comparing SBVQ, DY, and CR between prokinetics versus clear liquid or fasting of small bowel VCE.
Author (year, area) Design Number
Prokinetics Prokinetics versus placebo or fasting GTT (min) SBTT (min) SBVQ DY CR Leung et al. [28 ] (2005, China) Prospective nonrandomized study 38 Erythromycin 16 versus 70 227 versus 183 54% versus 64% N/A 96% versus 79% Caddy et al. [29 ] (2006, Australia) Prospective RCT 45 Erythromycin 51 versus 38 304 versus 302 1.9 versus 2.2 N/A 68% versus 78% Niv et al. [30 ] (2008, Israel) Retrospective blind study 100 Erythromycin 21 versus 28 279 versus 270 2.8 versus 2.8 48% versus 36% 90% versus 84% Wei et al. [31 ] (2007, China) Prospective RCT 60 Mosapride 14 versus 34 248 versus 281 N/A 73% versus 50% 93% versus 67% Selby [32 ] (2005, Australia) Prospective RCT 150 Metoclopramide 31 versus 48 231 versus 256 100% versus 69% 51% versus 57% 97% versus 76% Postgate et al. [33 ] (2009, UK) Prospective RCT 74 Metoclopramide 17 versus 17 260 versus 278 38 versus 37 26% versus 35% 85% versus 89% Almeida et al. [34 ] (2010, Portugal) Prospective RCT 95 Metoclopramide 26 versus 28 221 versus 256 55% versus 54% 68% versus 65% 81% versus 77% Hooks III et al. [35 ] (2009, Netherlands) Prospective RCT 40 Lubiprostone 126 versus 43 188 versus 219 NS N/A N/A Matsuura et al. [36 ] (2014, Japan) Prospective RCT 6 Lubiprostone 58 versus 23 111 versus 179 3.76 versus 2.88 N/A N/A
VCE: video capsule endoscopy, GTT: gastric transit time, SBTT: small bowel transit time, SBVQ: small bowel visualization quality, DY: diagnostic yield, CR: completion rate, RCT: randomized controlled trial, N/A: not applicable, and NS: no significant.