{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03580786026200873, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01572052401746725, 'mean_word_length': 5.128342245989304, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[A comparative study of methods of preparing the colon for a double-contrast study: Prepacol versus ricinus capsules with a cleansing enema].

In a controlled study, we analyzed the efficiency of cleansing out the colon and the best contrast medium of two different regimens (total n = 237) for preparing the colon for double-contrast examination. The recommendations regarding diet and liquid intake, contrast medium and examination technique were identical in both groups. The combination laxative Prepacol without cleansing enema resulted in a more thoroughly cleaned colon that ricinol with cleansing enema (very good/good cleanliness: Prepacol, 92.4%; ricinol, 83.2%, p less than 0.05). However, the quality of contrast medium (good: Prepacol 71.2% as opposed to ricinol 74.8%) was (independent of the preparation method) below standard regarding cleansing of the colon. Better patient compliance was accomplished by Prepacol because the medication was easier to take, and omitting the cleansing enema was a reduction in burden for both patients and medical staff. Written instructions for diet is essential and was of help to the patients.