Introduction

Bowel preparation is an unavoidable part of colonoscopy practice. Clinicians are repeatedly required to select a regimen in routine care—often within limited consultation time, with variable patient understanding, and with an expanding range of preparation options. When cleansing is inadequate, mucosal visualization is compromised, the examination may be prolonged, diagnostic confidence may be reduced, and repeat colonoscopy is frequently required. Major society guidelines therefore emphasize modifiable measures such as split-dose administration, completing the final dose close to the procedure, and structured patient instruction to improve preparation adequacy and tolerability. In addition, guidelines recommend that preparation quality be documented using standardized descriptors or validated scoring systems to support quality monitoring and follow-up planning [1-3].

In everyday practice, however, bowel preparation is rarely a simple choice of “which product to prescribe.” Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), advanced age, chronic constipation, or those undergoing inpatient colonoscopy often present with overlapping risk factors for inadequate preparation and incomplete intake. Evidence syntheses in “hard-to-prepare” patients summarize consistent clinical and setting-related correlates of suboptimal cleansing, including constipation, comorbidity burden, medication exposure, and inpatient status [4]. Safety considerations also differ by population; oral sodium phosphate has well-described renal safety concerns in susceptible individuals and is generally discouraged in patients with kidney disease [1-3,5]. For hospitalized patients, barriers are frequently system-related, and randomized data suggest that protocolized pathways can improve comfort while maintaining cleansing effectiveness [6]. Recent clinical updates also emphasize protocolization and workflow alignment as practical levers in high-risk settings [7].

These challenges are also encountered in high-volume practice settings, including many Korean centers, where bowel preparation is commonly prescribed during brief outpatient visits and procedure schedules (early-morning or add-on inpatient cases) can make regimen timing and adherence difficult. Regional practice perspectives and safety considerations have also been discussed in the Korean literature [8].

Accordingly, this review summarizes major society guidelines and selected studies relevant to bowel preparation in IBD, CKD, older adults, chronic constipation, and hospitalized patients, and we suggest a practical, risk-stratified approach to regimen selection, timing, and safety monitoring in routine practice (Tables 1, 2, Fig. 1) [1-8].

In this review, “special populations” refers to patients who require bowel preparation strategies beyond routine outpatients for one of the following reasons: (1) safety vulnerability to fluid/electrolyte shifts (e.g., advanced CKD, frailty/advanced age, limited intake), (2) high risk of inadequate cleansing due to clinical or system barriers (e.g., severe constipation, inpatient status, prior inadequate preparation), and/or (3) condition-specific interpretability concerns, as in IBD where subtle mucosal assessment is central. These categories often overlap in real-world practice.

General principles

1. Regimen timing: split dose as the default

Preparation adequacy should be assessed and documented in a standardized manner, using validated scoring systems when feasible, to support quality improvement and appropriate surveillance intervals [1-3]. In practice, “inadequate preparation” refers to cleansing that does not allow reliable mucosal assessment and may preclude assignment of standard screening or surveillance intervals [1-3].

Regimen timing is a major determinant of bowel cleansing quality and often explains failure even when an appropriate agent is prescribed. Current guidelines consistently recommend split-dose administration for most patients because it improves overall cleansing—particularly in the proximal colon—and is generally better tolerated than single, day-before dosing [1-3]. This approach is most effective when the interval between completion of the final dose and colonoscopy is kept short, while still observing institutional fasting and sedation policies [1-3]. For afternoon colonoscopy, same-day regimens may be considered when split dosing is impractical, provided that safety requirements are met and the patient can tolerate intake [1-3]. Clinicians should anticipate common reasons for incomplete intake (nausea, early satiety, anxiety, competing medications) and address them proactively, because partial consumption is a frequent cause of inadequate preparation in high-risk groups [4,5].

2. Diet and patient instruction: consistently modifiable drivers

Dietary measures and patient instruction remain the most consistently modifiable components of bowel preparation. Although specific diet protocols vary across institutions, guidelines generally support restricting solid residue before colonoscopy and providing clear, standardized instructions regarding permitted intake, timing of preparation, and management of common symptoms [1-3]. Evidence syntheses and clinical updates also emphasize reinforcement strategies (e.g., reminders and caregiver engagement when appropriate), particularly in older adults and hospitalized patients [4,5]. Practical details—such as coordinating the timing of regular medications and ensuring access to clear liquids—often determine whether the prescribed regimen is actually completed.

3. Risk stratification

Risk stratification is useful because the likelihood of inadequate preparation is not evenly distributed. Reviews focusing on hard-to-prepare patients summarize a consistent set of clinical and contextual features linked to suboptimal cleansing, including constipation, comorbidity burden, medication exposures, and inpatient setting [4]. Risk factors and practical implications are summarized in Table 1. For patients with one or more high-risk features—particularly a prior history of inadequate preparation, severe constipation, frailty, or inpatient status—guidelines and evidence syntheses support adopting “high-risk pathways,” such as intensified regimens, closer follow-up before the procedure, and a lower threshold for rescue strategies when preparation is clearly incomplete [1-5].

4. Choice of agent and safety considerations

Agent selection should balance cleansing efficacy, tolerability, and patient-specific safety risks. Society guidelines generally position polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based solutions as a conservative option across a wide range of patients because of their iso-osmotic profile and favorable safety record [1-3]. Low-volume PEG-based regimens may improve tolerability and completion rates in selected patients; however, success remains anchored in adequate dose completion and appropriate timing [1-3]. Real-world data suggest that low-volume PEG strategies can achieve acceptable preparation quality in outpatient practice, but patient selection and adherence remain important [9]. In regions where access to 4-L PEG is limited (including South Korea), locally available low-volume PEG-based formulations (e.g., 2-L PEG with/without ascorbate or other PEG regimens) represent acceptable alternatives when split dosing, full completion, and a short final-dose-to-colonoscopy interval are preserved.

Importantly, PEG-based regimens are not entirely without risk. A case report described a 75-year-old female patient who developed acute severe hyponatremia with generalized tonic-clonic seizure after ingestion of a PEG-electrolyte solution, with thiazide exposure noted as a potential contributor [7]. Although such events appear uncommon, the report highlights a practical point: in patients at risk for hyponatremia (e.g., older adults, those receiving thiazides or other agents associated with hyponatremia, patients with limited physiologic reserve, or those with prior hyponatremia), bowel preparation should be accompanied by medication review and clear hydration guidance. In highly vulnerable patients, clinicians may consider emphasizing electrolyte-containing fluids rather than excessive hypotonic “free water,” and selective serum electrolyte assessment can be considered when clinical concern is high or symptoms occur [7].

Hyperosmotic preparations require more caution in patients vulnerable to fluid and electrolyte disturbances. Oral sodium phosphate, in particular, is associated with acute phosphate nephropathy and should be avoided in patients with kidney disease and other high-risk settings [1-3,6]. Practical selection under special conditions has been summarized in the literature and can help guide individualized decisions in routine care [10].

Bowel preparation in special populations

1. Inflammatory bowel disease

1) Clinical context

In IBD, bowel preparation influences more than procedural completion. Cleansing quality affects the reliability of mucosal assessment for inflammatory activity and supports surveillance examinations in which subtle lesions matter [9,10]. Suboptimal preparation can obscure mild inflammatory changes and reduce confidence in endoscopic interpretation [9,10]. Because many patients undergo repeated colonoscopies over time, regimens that provide consistent cleansing while maintaining interpretability are preferred [11,12].

2) Preparation-related mucosal abnormalities and interpretability

Several bowel preparations have been reported to induce transient mucosal changes that may complicate interpretation. In particular, colonic mucosal abnormalities have been described after oral sodium phosphate, raising concern for potential diagnostic confusion when subtle mucosal findings guide decisions [13]. This issue is also emphasized in IBD-focused discussions of bowel preparation [11,12]. In practice, avoiding agents that may introduce interpretive uncertainty is reasonable when endoscopic assessment is expected to influence treatment decisions or surveillance planning.

3) Regimen selection in inflammatory bowel disease

PEG-based solutions are generally a practical first choice in IBD because they are recommended in major guidelines and have a long-standing safety profile in routine practice [1-3,11,12]. Observational IBD cohorts have identified patient- and setting-related factors associated with inadequate preparation, reinforcing the importance of timing, completion, and patient-level barriers [12,14]. In clinically stable patients, low-volume options may be considered to improve completion when tolerability is the primary barrier, while maintaining strict attention to timing and completion [5,12,14].

In patients with limited oral intake, frailty, or higher dehydration risk—including those with active symptoms—clinicians should prioritize safety and the likelihood of completing the full dose. Practical measures include simplifying stepwise instructions, planning hydration, and considering symptom control (e.g., antiemetics when nausea is anticipated) to support completion [7,9,10]. When high-quality visualization is critical (e.g., suspected subtle lesions or surveillance examinations), it is reasonable to prioritize cleansing adequacy over minimal volume and to adopt intensified strategies when high-risk features are present [1-5].

4) Practical recommendations for inflammatory bowel disease

• Use PEG-based split-dose regimens as a practical first-line approach in most IBD patients [1-3,11,12].

• Avoid oral sodium phosphate when interpretability is important, and consider preparation-related mucosal abnormalities when subtle findings are present [11-13].

• In limited intake, frailty, or dehydration risk, emphasize completion and safety (hydration plan and symptom control when appropriate) [5,11,12].

• For examinations requiring high-quality visualization, use an intensified pathway when high-risk features for inadequate preparation are present [1-5].

2. Chronic kidney disease

1) Clinical context

In CKD, the choice of bowel preparation is primarily driven by safety. Patients with reduced renal reserve are more vulnerable to clinically meaningful electrolyte shifts and volume depletion, and these risks may be amplified by diuretics or renin–angiotensin system blockers [5,10]. In advanced CKD (commonly including stage 4–5) or in patients with poor oral intake, conservative planning focused on hydration and completion is often necessary.

2) Major safety concerns: phosphate and magnesium loading

The most established safety concern is the association between oral sodium phosphate and acute phosphate nephropathy [6]. Accordingly, major guidelines discourage sodium phosphate in patients with kidney disease and other high-risk settings [1-3,6]. Magnesium-containing preparations warrant additional caution in advanced CKD due to impaired excretion and the risk of hypermagnesemia, consistent with general guidance on safety-oriented regimen selection [1-3,5,10]

3) Regimen selection in chronic kidney disease

PEG-based solutions are generally preferred in CKD because they are iso-osmotic and are less likely to produce clinically relevant electrolyte shifts when taken as recommended [1-3,5,10]. In advanced CKD, frailty, or limited intake, the regimen should be selected with attention to dose completion and hydration planning. Selective laboratory monitoring (electrolytes and renal function) may be considered when clinical vulnerability is high or when dehydration risk is expected to be difficult to mitigate [5,10].

4) Practical recommendations for chronic kidney disease

• Avoid oral sodium phosphate in CKD because of the risk of acute phosphate nephropathy [6].

• Prefer PEG-based regimens and emphasize split-dose timing and completion [1-3].

• Use caution with magnesium-containing agents, particularly in advanced CKD [1-3,5,10].

• In advanced CKD or frailty/limited intake, plan hydration and consider selective laboratory monitoring when clinically indicated [5,10].

3. Older adults

1) Clinical context

Older adults are a heterogeneous group in whom preparation failure often reflects both physiologic and practical factors. Reduced mobility, slower transit, comorbidity burden, and polypharmacy increase the likelihood of inadequate cleansing and incomplete intake [15]. Safety is central because limited physiologic reserve increases vulnerability to dehydration and electrolyte disturbances [5,10,15].

2) Efficacy and tolerability considerations

Reviews focusing on elderly patients emphasize that regimen success is strongly influenced by timing, completion, and patient support, and that low-volume strategies may be appropriate for selected patients to improve completion [5,15]. A recent study comparing in-hospital versus at-home administration in elderly outpatients supports a tailored approach when adherence barriers are prominent [16]. Real-world data on low-volume PEG strategies also suggest that acceptable preparation quality can be achieved in outpatient practice, although patient selection and adherence remain important [9].

3) Safety considerations: frailty, hydration, and medication review

In older adults, adverse events often reflect a mismatch between regimen demands and patient capacity. Frailty, baseline low intake, and diuretic use increase dehydration risk; cognitive impairment may reduce adherence and increase fall risk during frequent toileting [15]. When safety concerns are prominent, it is reasonable to prioritize regimens with predictable safety profiles (often PEG-based) and to involve caregivers to support timing and completion [1-3,5,15]. In selected patients with substantial adherence or safety concerns, supervised preparation may be more appropriate than unsupervised home preparation [15,16].

4) Practical recommendations for older adults

• Use split-dose timing as the default and prioritize completion and timing [1-3].

• Consider low-volume options in selected older adults to improve completion, while individualizing for frailty and comorbidity [5,9,15].

• Perform medication review and provide a hydration plan; engage caregivers when appropriate [5,15].

• Consider supervised pathways when adherence barriers or safety concerns are substantial [15,16].

4. Chronic constipation (and “hard-to-prepare” outpatients)

1) Clinical context

Constipation is frequently discussed as a practical marker of “hard-to-prepare” patients and is commonly listed among factors associated with inadequate cleansing [4,17]. In practice, constipation may be under-recognized unless specifically assessed, and patients may present with prior inadequate preparation or prolonged stool retention [17].

2) Practical approach and intensified strategies

Guidelines and reviews recommend intensified strategies for patients with constipation or prior inadequate preparation, including split-dose timing, PEG-based regimens, earlier dietary modification, and reinforced instruction [1-5,17]. A practical approach begins with proactive identification (bowel frequency, baseline laxative use, history of prior poor preparation) and early planning for adherence and completion [17].

As part of intensified pathways, adjunctive agents are sometimes used in selected high-risk patients. Bisacodyl is not routinely recommended for average-risk patients in major society guidelines, but it is commonly incorporated into intensified regimens for severe constipation or prior inadequate preparation. Clinicians should counsel patients about cramping and monitor for dehydration from diarrhea in vulnerable patients, and avoid use when bowel obstruction is suspected.

Constipation is also a common indication for colonoscopy referral. Available data suggest that constipation alone may not be associated with higher rates of significant findings, and concomitant alarm features or additional indications remain important in clinical decision-making; however, this review focuses on preparation strategy rather than indication assessment [18,19].

Practical tools for constipation assessment and management in Asia may help standardize evaluation and communication in primary care and referral pathways [20].

3) Practical recommendations for constipation

• Screen proactively for constipation and ask about prior inadequate preparation [4,17].

• Use a high-risk pathway when severe constipation or prior failure is present: earlier dietary modification, split-dose timing, PEG-based core regimen, and reinforced instructions [1-5,17].

• Keep indication assessment in context; constipation alone should be interpreted with accompanying symptoms and risk factors (briefly noted) [18,19].

• Use structured assessment tools where helpful [20].

5. Hospitalized patients

1) Clinical context

Inpatients represent a distinct high-risk group. Preparation failure is commonly driven by acute illness, reduced mobility, opioid exposure, nausea, competing diagnostic tests, and limited autonomy [4,5]. Inadequate preparation may lead to delays and repeat procedures, with implications for resource utilization [5].

2) Evidence for system-focused interventions

A randomized controlled trial in hospitalized patients aged ≥50 years supports protocolized regimens incorporating dietary measures and adjunct strategies to maintain cleansing effectiveness and improve comfort, reinforcing the value of structured pathways in ward practice [8]. Clinical updates similarly emphasize protocolization, monitoring of intake/output, and coordination with scheduling to preserve effective timing [5].

3) Practical approach: protocolized pathway

A practical inpatient pathway should address both regimen prescription and system barriers. Core elements include:

• Standardized order set: specifying agent, split-dose timing, diet, and symptom control [5,8].

• Nursing checklist: for dose administration and documentation of completion [5,8].

• Monitoring of intake/output and stool/effluent quality: with escalation criteria when preparation is clearly incomplete [5,8].

• Symptom control plan (e.g., nausea management; coordination of analgesics when feasible): because nausea and pain commonly limit completion [5].

• Scheduling coordination: to preserve effective timing and reduce repeated delays [5].

When preparation is clearly inadequate, early recognition allows rescue strategies or rescheduling decisions before proceeding with a low-yield examination [1-3,5].

4) Practical recommendations for hospitalized patients

• Recognize inpatient status as a hard-to-prepare setting and plan accordingly [4,5].

• Prioritize protocolized pathways rather than ad hoc regimen changes [5,8].

• Address barriers to completion with symptom control and monitoring of intake/output and stool quality [5,8].

• Use early assessment to guide rescue strategies or rescheduling when preparation is inadequate [1-3,5].

Rescue strategies and safety monitoring

Even with careful planning, inadequate preparation is encountered in routine practice. A practical approach begins with early recognition, ideally before sedation. Guidelines emphasize that bedside assessment of completion and effluent quality, together with patient history, can help identify a high likelihood of inadequate cleansing and justify additional measures before proceeding [1-3]. Such preprocedure salvage is particularly relevant in high-risk settings where incomplete intake is common [4,5].

When inadequacy is recognized during colonoscopy, salvage options may be considered, including intensified washing/suctioning and adjunctive measures; recommendations are generally framed as context-dependent rather than as a single preferred approach [1-3,5]. In special populations, safety considerations should remain central. In CKD or in patients vulnerable to electrolyte disturbances, strategies that increase phosphate or magnesium exposure should be avoided when possible, and PEG-based approaches are generally preferred when feasible [1-3,5,6]. In selected older adults or medically vulnerable patients, symptoms suggestive of dysnatremia during preparation should prompt clinical reassessment and consideration of serum electrolyte measurement [7].

If preparation remains inadequate to support standard screening or surveillance intervals, early repeat colonoscopy is recommended. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommends repeating colonoscopy within 1 year after inadequate preparation, unless clinically contraindicated [2]. The US Multi-Society Task Force similarly recommends completing a repeat colonoscopy within 12 months after an inadequate examination for screening or surveillance, with earlier repetition in selected higher-risk indications [1]. Documentation of preparation quality and explicit follow-up plans are therefore important components of quality and patient safety [1,2,5].

Conclusions

Bowel preparation remains a key determinant of colonoscopy performance, and inadequate cleansing continues to occur disproportionately in special populations. Across patient groups, the most consistently supported strategies include split-dose timing, completion of the final dose close to the procedure, and structured patient instruction with reinforcement [1-3]. Standardized documentation of preparation quality supports quality improvement and appropriate follow-up after an inadequate examination [1-3].

In special populations, regimen selection should balance cleansing efficacy with patient-specific safety risks. In IBD, clinicians should prioritize reliable mucosal visualization and interpretability and consider preparation-related mucosal abnormalities associated with sodium phosphate when subtle findings matter, with PEG-based regimens serving as a conservative first-line option in most cases [1-3,11-14]. In CKD, avoidance of oral sodium phosphate and careful consideration of electrolyte risks are important, and PEG-based regimens are usually favored when safety is a priority [1-3,5]. However, PEG-based solutions are not entirely risk-free; severe hyponatremia with seizure has been reported after PEG-electrolyte bowel preparation in an older patient, highlighting the need for medication review and individualized hydration guidance in selected high-risk settings [7]. In older adults, planning should incorporate frailty, comorbidity, polypharmacy, mobility, hydration status, and dysnatremia risk; low-volume strategies may be suitable for selected patients but should not supersede safety and completion [5,7,9,15,16]. Chronic constipation is a common marker of hard-to-prepare patients and often warrants intensified strategies with reinforced instruction and timing optimization [1-5,17]. For hospitalized patients, system-level barriers frequently predominate, and protocolized pathways and multidisciplinary coordination are important levers for improving adequacy and comfort [5,8].

Given the heterogeneity of evidence in high-risk groups and real-world constraints, we suggest a practical, risk-stratified approach to regimen selection, timing, education, and safety monitoring, with structured recognition and management of inadequate preparation and timely repeat colonoscopy when needed [1,2,5].

Article information

Conflicts of interest

Won Moon is the Editor-in-Chief and Sung Eun Kim is an editorial board member of the journal but was not involved in the peer reviewer selection, evaluation, or decision process of this article. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Funding

None.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: MHL, WM. Data curation: MHL, WM. Investigation: MHL, WM. Methodology: WM. Project administration: WM. Resources: MHL. Supervision: WM. Validation: KJ, JHK, SEK, MIP, SJP. Visualization: MHL. Writing-original draft: MHL, WM. Writing-review & editing: all authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Fig. 1.

Practical, risk-stratified workflow for bowel preparation in special populations. Patients are assessed for failure risk and safety vulnerability before prescription; split-dose with standardized instructions is the default strategy. High-risk patients follow an intensified pathway (reinforced support, preserved timing, and a PEG-based core regimen with safety checks), with an inflammatory bowel disease interpretability note and a preprocedure checkpoint to guide salvage/rescheduling and appropriate follow-up when preparation is inadequate. CKD, chronic kidney disease; NaP, oral sodium phosphate; PEG, polyethylene glycol.

References

• 1. Jacobson BC, Anderson JC, Burke CA, Dominitz JA, Gross SA, May FP, et al. Optimizing bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy: consensus recommendations by the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2025;120:738–64.ArticlePubMed
• 2. Hassan C, East J, Radaelli F, Spada C, Benamouzig R, Bisschops R, et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Update 2019. Endoscopy 2019;51:775–94.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 3. Saltzman JR, Cash BD, Pasha SF, Early DS, Muthusamy VR, Khashab MA, et al. Bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:781–94.ArticlePubMed
• 4. Shahini E, Sinagra E, Vitello A, Ranaldo R, Contaldo A, Facciorusso A, et al. Factors affecting the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy in hard-to-prepare patients: evidence from the literature. World J Gastroenterol 2023;29:1685–707.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 5. Maida M, Grieme AD, Wu Y, Vitello A, Bonomo F, Maida CD, et al. Clinical updates in bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2026;80:102046.ArticlePubMed
• 6. Markowitz GS, Stokes MB, Radhakrishnan J, D'Agati VD. Acute phosphate nephropathy following oral sodium phosphate bowel purgative: an underrecognized cause of chronic renal failure. J Am Soc Nephrol 2005;16:3389–96.ArticlePubMed
• 7. Lee MH, Lee BH, Oh SK, Seo JY, Kim HJ, Seo BJ. Acute severe hyponatremia with seizure following polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Kosin Med J 2012;27:173–6.ArticlePDF
• 8. He Y, Liu Q, Chen YW, Cui LJ, Cao K, Guo ZH. Bowel preparation protocol for hospitalized patients ages 50 years or older: a randomized controlled trial. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2024;16:18–28.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 9. Scalvini D, Lenti MV, Maimaris S, Lusetti F, Alimenti E, Fazzino E, et al. Superior bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy with 1L-PEG compared to 2L-PEG and picosulphate: data from a large real-world retrospective outpatient cohort. Dig Liver Dis 2024;56:1906–13.ArticlePubMed
• 10. Moon W. Optimal and safe bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Clin Endosc 2013;46:219–23.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 11. Lightner AL. Bowel preparation in inflammatory bowel disease: a necessary evil? Crohns Colitis 360 2020;2:otaa078.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 12. Gravina AG, Pellegrino R, Romeo M, Palladino G, Cipullo M, Iadanza G, et al. Quality of bowel preparation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease undergoing colonoscopy: what factors to consider? World J Gastrointest Endosc 2023;15:133–45.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 13. Zwas FR, Cirillo NW, el-Serag HB, Eisen RN. Colonic mucosal abnormalities associated with oral sodium phosphate solution. Gastrointest Endosc 1996;43:463–6.ArticlePubMed
• 14. Negreanu L, Voiosu T, State M, Mateescu RB. Quality of colonoscopy preparation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: retrospective analysis of 348 colonoscopies. J Int Med Res 2020;48:300060520903654.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 15. Ho SB, Hovsepians R, Gupta S. Optimal bowel cleansing for colonoscopy in the elderly patient. Drugs Aging 2017;34:163–72.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 16. Yamaguchi D, Gondo K, Nomura T, Mizuta Y, Fukami S, Ishida S, et al. Comparison of in-hospital and at-home administration of bowel preparation agents before outpatient colonoscopy in elderly patients. JGH Open 2025;9:e70303.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 17. Popovic DD, Filipovic B. Constipation and colonoscopy. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2024;16:244–9.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 18. Abu Baker F, Mari A, Taher R, Nicola D, Gal O, Zeina AR. The yield of colonoscopy in the evaluation of constipation: an age-based analysis of outcome. J Clin Med 2024;13:2910.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 19. Gupta M, Holub J, Knigge K, Eisen G. Constipation is not associated with an increased rate of findings on colonoscopy: results from a national endoscopy consortium. Endoscopy 2010;42:208–12.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 20. Gwee KA, Ghoshal UC, Gonlachanvit S, Chua AS, Myung SJ, Rajindrajith S, et al. Primary care management of chronic constipation in Asia: the ANMA chronic constipation tool. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2013;19:149–60.ArticlePubMedPMC

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by