1
|
João M, Areia M, Alves S, Elvas L, Brito D, Saraiva S, Cadime AT. The Effect of Oral Simethicone in a Bowel Preparation in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Colonoscopy Setting: A Randomized Controlled Trial. GE PORTUGUESE JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY 2024; 31:116-123. [PMID: 38572443 PMCID: PMC10987070 DOI: 10.1159/000530866] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2022] [Accepted: 03/16/2023] [Indexed: 04/05/2024]
Abstract
Introduction Current guidelines suggest adding oral simethicone to bowel preparation for colonoscopy. However, its effect on key quality indicators for screening colonoscopy remains unclear. The primary aim was to assess the rate of adequate bowel preparation in split-dose high-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG), with or without simethicone. Methods This is an endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial, including patients scheduled for colonoscopy after a positive faecal immunochemical test. Patients were randomly assigned to 4 L of PEG split dose (PEG) or 4 L of PEG split dose plus 500 mg oral simethicone (PEG + simethicone). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, the preparation quality regarding bubbles using the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS), ADR, CIR, and the intraprocedural use of simethicone were recorded. Results We included 191 and 197 patients in the PEG + simethicone group and the PEG group, respectively. When comparing the PEG + simethicone group versus the PEG group, no significant differences in adequate bowel preparation rates (97% vs. 93%; p = 0.11) were found. However, the bubble scale score was significantly lower in the PEG + simethicone group (0 [0] versus 2 [5], p < 0.01), as well as intraprocedural use of simethicone (7% vs. 37%; p < 0.01). ADR (62% vs. 61%; p = 0.86) and CIR (98% vs. 96%, p = 0.14) did not differ between both groups. Conclusion Adding oral simethicone to a split-bowel preparation resulted in a lower incidence of bubbles and a lower intraprocedural use of simethicone but no further improvement on the preparation quality or ADR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mafalda João
- Gastroenterology Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
| | - Miguel Areia
- Gastroenterology Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
| | - Susana Alves
- Gastroenterology Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
| | - Luís Elvas
- Gastroenterology Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
| | - Daniel Brito
- Gastroenterology Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
| | - Sandra Saraiva
- Gastroenterology Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
| | - Ana Teresa Cadime
- Gastroenterology Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Jung W, Oh GM, Kim JH, Choi YJ, Son MY, Jung K, Kim SE, Moon W, Park MI, Park SJ. When should patients take simethicone orally before colonoscopy for avoiding bubbles: A single-blind, randomized controlled study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2023; 102:e33728. [PMID: 37171339 PMCID: PMC10174409 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000033728] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/13/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Many studies have reported the use of simethicone before colonoscopy removes bubbles. However, guidelines weakly recommend simethicone administration before colonoscopy. The present study aimed to confirm the advantages of taking simethicone and determine the appropriate time for taking simethicone. METHODS We randomly assigned patients to the following 5 groups according to the administration time: 4 groups were divided based on 2 parameters (the day before and on the day of colonoscopy and before and after bowel cleansing) and the remaining group was the control group. We compared bubble score (BS), number of simethicone solution irrigations when visually obscured, satisfaction score of the endoscopist, insertion time. RESULTS A total of 204 patients were included in the study. There was a difference in BS according to the timing of simethicone administration (P < .001). The group taking simethicone on the day of the test had a better BS than the group taking simethicone the day before (P < .001). The group taking simethicone on the previous day had a better BS than the control group (P = .001). In the group of taking simethicone on the examination day, the number of irrigations was lower, and satisfaction with the inspector was higher than group of taking simethicone on previous day and control group (both P < .001). The insertion time showed a non-significantly decreasing trend (P = .417). CONCLUSION Administering simethicone reduced bubbles and facilitated effective colonoscopy, especially when administrating it on the day of examination. It needs to be administered on the day of the examination regardless of bowel preparation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Woohyuk Jung
- Department of Internal Medicine, Kosin University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Gravina AG, Pellegrino R, Romeo M, Palladino G, Cipullo M, Iadanza G, Olivieri S, Zagaria G, De Gennaro N, Santonastaso A, Romano M, Federico A. Quality of bowel preparation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease undergoing colonoscopy: What factors to consider? World J Gastrointest Endosc 2023; 15:133-145. [PMID: 37034970 PMCID: PMC10080552 DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v15.i3.133] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/14/2022] [Revised: 12/07/2022] [Accepted: 02/15/2023] [Indexed: 03/16/2023] Open
Abstract
An adequate bowel preparation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a prerequisite for successful colonoscopy for screening, diagnosis, and surveillance. Several bowel preparation formulations are available, both high- and low-volume based on polyethylene glycol. Generally, low-volume formulations are also based on several compounds such as magnesium citrate preparations with sodium picosulphate, oral sulphate solution, and oral sodium phosphate-based solutions. Targeted studies on the quality of bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy in the IBD population are still required, with current evidence from existing studies being inconclusive. New frontiers are also moving towards the use of alternatives to anterograde ones, using preparations based on retrograde colonic lavage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Raffaele Pellegrino
- Department of Precision Medicine, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples 80138, Italy
| | - Mario Romeo
- Department of Precision Medicine, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples 80138, Italy
| | - Giovanna Palladino
- Department of Precision Medicine, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples 80138, Italy
| | - Marina Cipullo
- Department of Precision Medicine, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples 80138, Italy
| | - Giorgia Iadanza
- Department of Precision Medicine, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples 80138, Italy
| | - Simone Olivieri
- Department of Precision Medicine, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples 80138, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Zagaria
- Department of Precision Medicine, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples 80138, Italy
| | - Nicola De Gennaro
- Department of Precision Medicine, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples 80138, Italy
| | - Antonio Santonastaso
- Department of Precision Medicine, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples 80138, Italy
| | - Marco Romano
- Department of Precision Medicine, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples 80138, Italy
| | - Alessandro Federico
- Department of Precision Medicine, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples 80138, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Sun M, Yang G, Wang Y. Cleaning effect and tolerance of 16 bowel preparation regimens on adult patients before colonoscopy: a network meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2023; 38:69. [PMID: 36905434 DOI: 10.1007/s00384-023-04355-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/20/2023] [Indexed: 03/12/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Colonoscopy is the gold standard for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). Before a colonoscopy, an adequate bowel preparation (BP) is required. Currently, more novel regimens with different effects have been proposed and used successively. This network meta-analysis aims to compare the cleaning effects and patients' tolerability of several BP regimens. METHODS We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials including sixteen kinds of BP regimens. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The outcomes of this study were bowel cleansing effect and tolerance. RESULTS We included a total of 40 articles with 13,064 patients. For the primary outcomes, polyethylene glycol (PEG) + ascorbic acid (Asc) + simethicone (Sim) (OR, 14.27, 95%CrI, 2.68-127.87) regimen is ranked first in Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). PEG + Sim (OR, 2.0, 95%CrI 0.64-6.4) regimen is ranked first in Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS), but without significant differences. For the secondary outcomes, PEG + Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate (SP/MC) (OR, 4.88e + 11, 95%CrI, 39.56-1.82e + 35) regimen is the best in cecal intubation rate(CIR). PEG + Sim (OR,1.5, 95%CrI, 1.0-2.2) regimen is ranked first in adenoma detection rate(ADR). Senna (OR, 3.23, 95%CrI, 1.04-9.97) and SP/MC (OR, 249.91, 95%CrI, 78.49-958.19) regimens are ranked first in abdominal pain and willingness to repeat, respectively. There is no significant difference in cecal intubation time (CIT), polyp detection rate (PDR), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal bloat. CONCLUSION PEG + Asc + Sim regimen is more effective at cleaning the bowel. PEG + SP/MC will be helpful to increase CIR. For ADR, PEG + Sim regimen will be more helpful. In addition, PEG + Asc + Sim is the least likely to cause abdominal bloat, while Senna regimen is more likely to cause abdominal pain. Patients prefer to re-use the SP/MC regimen for bowel preparation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ming Sun
- College of Life Sciences and Biopharmaceuticals, Shenyang Pharmaceutical University, Shenyang, China.,Pharmacy Department of Chinese PLA No. 463 Hospital, Shenyang, China
| | - Guangzhao Yang
- Department of Outpatient, General Hospital of Northern Theater Command, Shenyang, China
| | - Yu Wang
- College of Life Sciences and Biopharmaceuticals, Shenyang Pharmaceutical University, Shenyang, China. .,Pharmacy Department of Chinese PLA No. 463 Hospital, Shenyang, China.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Cao RR, Wang L, Gao C, Pan JH, Yoshida EM, Li HY, Qi XS. Effect of oral simethicone on the quality of colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Dig Dis 2022; 23:134-148. [PMID: 35075814 DOI: 10.1111/1751-2980.13084] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/11/2021] [Revised: 01/17/2022] [Accepted: 01/21/2022] [Indexed: 01/30/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate the effect of oral simethicone (SIM), an antifoaming agent, on the quality of colonoscopy in terms of bowel preparation quality, adenoma or polyp detection rate (ADR/PDR) and cecal intubation rate (CIR). METHODS All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of SIM during bowel preparation for colonoscopy published up to 17 March 2021 were identified from the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. Bowel preparation quality, ADR/PDR/CIR, cecal intubation time (CIT), withdrawal time (WT), patients' tolerability, acceptability and volume of foam and bubbles were compared between the SIM and non-SIM groups. RESULTS Thirty-eight RCTs with 10 505 patients were included. Oral SIM significantly increased the rate of total Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) score ≥6 (risk ratio [RR] 1.13, P < 0.0001), acceptability (RR 1.15, P = 0.01) and the rate of no or minimal foam and bubbles (RR 1.28, P < 0.00001) and decreased abdominal distension (RR 0.64, P < 0.0001). However, it had no significant impact on overall ADR, overall PDR, CIR, CIT or WT. The rate of total BBPS score ≥6 remained significantly higher in the SIM group when a single-dose laxative regimen or a SIM dosage of ≥320 mg was employed; and ADR, PDR and CIR were significantly increased in the SIM group among colonoscopy clinicians who achieved an ADR <31%, PDR <45% and CIR <96%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Oral SIM can improve bowel preparation quality, especially in patients receiving a SIM dosage of ≥320 mg or a single-dose laxative regimen. SIM may be preferred by junior colonoscopy physicians/trainees with a lower ADR/PDR or CIR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rong Rong Cao
- Department of Gastroenterology, General Hospital of Northern Theater Command, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China.,Postgraduate College, Jinzhou Medical University, Jinzhou, Liaoning Province, China
| | - Le Wang
- Department of Gastroenterology, General Hospital of Northern Theater Command, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China.,China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China
| | - Cong Gao
- Department of Gastroenterology, General Hospital of Northern Theater Command, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China
| | - Jia Hui Pan
- Department of Gastroenterology, General Hospital of Northern Theater Command, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China
| | - Eric M Yoshida
- Division of Gastroenterology, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Hong Yu Li
- Department of Gastroenterology, General Hospital of Northern Theater Command, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China
| | - Xing Shun Qi
- Department of Gastroenterology, General Hospital of Northern Theater Command, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Optimal Timing of Simethicone Supplement for Bowel Preparation: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 2021:4032285. [PMID: 34746040 PMCID: PMC8566047 DOI: 10.1155/2021/4032285] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2021] [Revised: 09/23/2021] [Accepted: 10/01/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Simethicone (SIM), as an antifoaming agent, has been shown to improve bowel preparation during colonoscopy. However, the optimal timing of SIM addition remained undetermined. We aimed to investigate the optimal timing of SIM addition to polyethylene glycol (PEG) to improve bowel preparation. METHODS Eligible patients were randomly assigned to two groups: the SIM evening group (SIM addition to PEG in the evening of the day prior to colonoscopy) and the SIM morning group (SIM addition to PEG in the morning of colonoscopy). The primary outcome was Bubble Scale (BS). The secondary outcomes were Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). RESULTS A total of 419 patients were enrolled in this study. The baseline characteristics of the patients were similar in both groups. No significant differences were observed in terms of BS (8.76 ± 0.90 vs. 8.65 ± 1.16, P = 0.81), ADR (34.1% vs. 30.8%, P = 0.47), Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) (8.59 ± 0.94 vs. 8.45 ± 1.00, P = 0.15), and withdrawal time (8.22 ± 2.04 vs. 8.01 ± 2.51, P = 0.094) between the two groups. Moreover, safety and compliance were similar in both groups. However, the SIM evening group was associated with shorter cecal intubation time (3.80 ± 1.81 vs. 4.42 ± 2.03, P < 0.001), higher BS (2.95 ± 0.26 vs. 2.88 ± 0.38, P = 0.04) in the right colon, and diminutive ADR (62.5% vs. 38.6%, P = 0.022) in the right colon, when compared to the SIM evening group. CONCLUSIONS The SIM addition to PEG in the evening of the day prior to colonoscopy can shorten cecal intubation time and improve BS scores and diminutive ADR of the right colon compared with the SIM addition to PEG in the morning of colonoscopy in bowel preparation.
Collapse
|
7
|
Yuan X, Zhang Z, Xie J, Zhang Y, Xu L, Wang W, Xu L. Comparison of 1L Adjuvant Auxiliary Preparations with 2L Solely Polyethylene Glycol plus Ascorbic Acid Regime for Bowel Cleaning: A Meta-analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials. BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL 2021; 2021:6638858. [PMID: 33681359 PMCID: PMC7910058 DOI: 10.1155/2021/6638858] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2020] [Revised: 01/26/2021] [Accepted: 02/10/2021] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
The effectiveness of additional usage of adjuvants for bowel preparation is still unclear. This study compared 1L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid with adjuvant drug regimens (1L PEG-AA, lower volume) with 2L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2L PEG-A, low volume) to evaluate whether the adjuvants can be used to reduce the standard dosage of purgative further. The PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science database were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was the efficacy of bowel preparation, and the secondary outcomes were patients' tolerability and complication rate. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADEpro guideline development tool. Five RCTs with a total of 1013 patients from Korea were included. The majority of patients were outpatients from different hospitals. The pooled data showed no significant difference in the adequate bowel preparation rate (89.3% versus 89.4%, RR 1, 95% CI 0.95-1.05, I 2 = 47%) as well as in the complication rate (RR for nausea 1.22, 95% CI 0.89-1.65, I 2 = 49%; RR for bloating 0.96, 95% CI 0.73-1.28, I 2 = 0%; RR for vomiting 0.69, 95% CI 0.32-1.50, I 2 = 33%; RR for abdominal pain 1.01, 95% CI 0.61-1.69, I 2 = 0%). But a significantly higher willingness rate was observed in the lower volume (85.1% versus 67.9%, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14-1.38, I 2 = 46%). The quality of primary outcome evidence was moderate. The findings of this meta-analysis revealed that 1L PEG-AA may be a viable alternative to 2L PEG-A, with comparable effectiveness, better patient preference, and no statistically significant adverse event occurrence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xin Yuan
- College of Medicine, Ningbo University, Zhejiang, China
- Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, Zhejiang, China
| | - Zhixin Zhang
- College of Medicine, Ningbo University, Zhejiang, China
- Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, Zhejiang, China
| | - Jiarong Xie
- Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, Zhejiang, China
| | - Yu Zhang
- Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, Zhejiang, China
| | - Lu Xu
- Clinical Department for Intensive Care, Ningbo No.2 Hospital, Zhejiang, China
| | - Weihong Wang
- Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, Zhejiang, China
| | - Lei Xu
- Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, Zhejiang, China
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Li DF, Luo MH, Du QQ, Zhang HY, Tian YH, Liu TT, Shi RY, Xiong F, Lai MG, Li YX, Luo S, Song Y, Wu BH, Xu ZL, Zhang DG, Yao J, Wang LS. Efficacy of low-dose versus high-dose simethicone with polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation: A prospective randomized controlled trial. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 35:1488-1494. [PMID: 32128877 DOI: 10.1111/jgh.15022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/28/2019] [Revised: 02/20/2020] [Accepted: 02/22/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM Additional simethicone (SIM) can improve adequate bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, there is no consensus on the optimal dose of SIM. In this study, we compared the adequate bowel preparation rate with supplementation of split-dose 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with low-dose SIM (200 mg) versus high-dose SIM (1200 mg). METHODS This was a prospective, randomized, observer-blinded trial involving consecutive subjects undergoing colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation as assessed by Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score. RESULTS Four hundred subjects were randomly allocated to low-dose SIM or high-dose SIM group. Baseline characteristics were comparable in the two groups (P > 0.05). No significant between-group differences were observed with respect to total bubble scale (BS) (8.49 ± 1.00 vs 8.39 ± 1.10, P = 0.07), total BBPS score (8.70 ± 0.81 vs 8.29 ± 1.18, P = 0.98), ADR (33.68% vs 31.79%, P = 0.69) or withdrawal time (13 [range, 10-16] min vs 13 [10-15] min, P = 0.96). The intubation time in low-dose SIM group was significantly shorter than that in high-dose SIM group (8 (4-16) min vs 10 [6-17] min, P = 0.04). In addition, BS scores as well as diminutive ADR in right colon were superior in the low-dose SIM group (2.68 ± 0.59 vs 2.52 ± 0.73, P = 0.03 and 54.29% vs 30.30%, P = 0.046, respectively). CONCLUSION Addition of low-dose SIM to split-dose 2 L PEG was as effective as addition of high-dose SIM with respect to adequate bowel preparation, ADR and patient tolerance. However, low-dose SIM was superior with respect to intubation time, right colon BS scores, right colon diminutive ADR and cost savings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- De-Feng Li
- Department of Gastroenterology, the Second Clinical Medicine College (Shenzhen People's Hospital) of Jinan University, Shenzhen, China
| | - Ming-Han Luo
- Department of Gastroenterology, the Second Clinical Medicine College (Shenzhen People's Hospital) of Jinan University, Shenzhen, China
| | - Qing-Qing Du
- Department of Gastroenterology, the Second Clinical Medicine College (Shenzhen People's Hospital) of Jinan University, Shenzhen, China
| | - Hai-Yang Zhang
- Department of Gastroenterology, the Second Clinical Medicine College (Shenzhen People's Hospital) of Jinan University, Shenzhen, China
| | - Yan-Hui Tian
- Department of Gastroenterology, the Second Clinical Medicine College (Shenzhen People's Hospital) of Jinan University, Shenzhen, China
| | - Ting-Ting Liu
- Department of Gastroenterology, the Second Clinical Medicine College (Shenzhen People's Hospital) of Jinan University, Shenzhen, China
| | - Rui-Yue Shi
- Department of Gastroenterology, the Second Clinical Medicine College (Shenzhen People's Hospital) of Jinan University, Shenzhen, China
| | - Feng Xiong
- Department of Gastroenterology, the Second Clinical Medicine College (Shenzhen People's Hospital) of Jinan University, Shenzhen, China
| | - Ming-Guang Lai
- Department of Gastroenterology, the Second Clinical Medicine College (Shenzhen People's Hospital) of Jinan University, Shenzhen, China
| | - Ying-Xue Li
- Department of Gastroenterology, the Second Clinical Medicine College (Shenzhen People's Hospital) of Jinan University, Shenzhen, China
| | - Su Luo
- Department of Gastroenterology, the Second Clinical Medicine College (Shenzhen People's Hospital) of Jinan University, Shenzhen, China
| | - Yang Song
- Department of Gastroenterology, the Second Clinical Medicine College (Shenzhen People's Hospital) of Jinan University, Shenzhen, China
| | - Ben-Hua Wu
- Department of Gastroenterology, the Second Clinical Medicine College (Shenzhen People's Hospital) of Jinan University, Shenzhen, China
| | - Zheng-Lei Xu
- Department of Gastroenterology, the Second Clinical Medicine College (Shenzhen People's Hospital) of Jinan University, Shenzhen, China
| | - Ding-Guo Zhang
- Department of Gastroenterology, the Second Clinical Medicine College (Shenzhen People's Hospital) of Jinan University, Shenzhen, China
| | - Jun Yao
- Department of Gastroenterology, the Second Clinical Medicine College (Shenzhen People's Hospital) of Jinan University, Shenzhen, China
| | - Li-Sheng Wang
- Department of Gastroenterology, the Second Clinical Medicine College (Shenzhen People's Hospital) of Jinan University, Shenzhen, China
| |
Collapse
|