Diseases of the colon and rectum · 2019
Impact of Electronic Chromoendoscopy on Adenoma Miss Rates During Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Desai Madhav, Viswanathan Lavanya, Gupta Neil, Kennedy Kevin F, Repici Alessandro, Hassan Cesare, Sharma Prateek
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The impact of virtual chromoendoscopy such as narrow-band imaging, Fujinon intelligent chromoendoscopy, blue-light imaging, linked-color imaging, and i-SCAN on adenoma detection rate has been variable. However, adenoma miss rate (another measure suggested as a quality indicator) of electronic chromoendoscopy modalities has not been systematically evaluated.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the adenoma miss rate of white-light endoscopy compared with electronic chromoendoscopy.
DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Knowledge, and Cochrane were the data sources for this study.
STUDY SELECTION: The studies selected were tandem randomized controlled trials of electronic chromoendoscopy modalities compared with white-light endoscopy.
INTERVENTIONS: Electronic chromoendoscopy compared with white light endoscopy was used to measure the adenoma miss rate.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was the pooled adenoma miss rate of electronic chromoendoscopy techniques compared with white-light endoscopy. Secondary outcomes were subgroup analysis, adenoma size analysis, and adenoma detection rate.
RESULTS: A total of 3507 patients were evaluated from 7 eligible tandem randomized control trials. A total of 1423 patients had white-light endoscopy as the first of the tandem examinations. The rest of the patients had electronic chromoendoscopy as the first of the tandem examination (narrow-band imaging, 988 patients; Fujinon intelligent chromoendoscopy, 728 patients; i-SCAN, 233 patients; blue-light imaging, 64 patients; and linked-color imaging, 71 patients). The pooled adenoma miss rate for electronic chromoendoscopy was not different than white-light endoscopy (17.9% vs 21%; OR, 0.72 (0.67-1.11); I 67%; p = 0.13). When only narrow-band imaging, blue-light imaging, and linked-color imaging were considered, the pooled rate was statistically significant (OR, 0.60 (0.37-0.98); p = 0.04). The pooled adenoma detection rate was not statistically different with electronic chromoendoscopy than white-light endoscopy (OR, 1.02 (0.88-1.19); p = 0.78).
LIMITATIONS: The small number of studies to assess the impact of each modality limited stratified conclusions.
CONCLUSIONS: Electronic chromoendoscopy is not associated with a significant reduction in adenoma miss rate compared with white-light colonoscopy.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the adenoma miss rate of white-light endoscopy compared with electronic chromoendoscopy.
DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Knowledge, and Cochrane were the data sources for this study.
STUDY SELECTION: The studies selected were tandem randomized controlled trials of electronic chromoendoscopy modalities compared with white-light endoscopy.
INTERVENTIONS: Electronic chromoendoscopy compared with white light endoscopy was used to measure the adenoma miss rate.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was the pooled adenoma miss rate of electronic chromoendoscopy techniques compared with white-light endoscopy. Secondary outcomes were subgroup analysis, adenoma size analysis, and adenoma detection rate.
RESULTS: A total of 3507 patients were evaluated from 7 eligible tandem randomized control trials. A total of 1423 patients had white-light endoscopy as the first of the tandem examinations. The rest of the patients had electronic chromoendoscopy as the first of the tandem examination (narrow-band imaging, 988 patients; Fujinon intelligent chromoendoscopy, 728 patients; i-SCAN, 233 patients; blue-light imaging, 64 patients; and linked-color imaging, 71 patients). The pooled adenoma miss rate for electronic chromoendoscopy was not different than white-light endoscopy (17.9% vs 21%; OR, 0.72 (0.67-1.11); I 67%; p = 0.13). When only narrow-band imaging, blue-light imaging, and linked-color imaging were considered, the pooled rate was statistically significant (OR, 0.60 (0.37-0.98); p = 0.04). The pooled adenoma detection rate was not statistically different with electronic chromoendoscopy than white-light endoscopy (OR, 1.02 (0.88-1.19); p = 0.78).
LIMITATIONS: The small number of studies to assess the impact of each modality limited stratified conclusions.
CONCLUSIONS: Electronic chromoendoscopy is not associated with a significant reduction in adenoma miss rate compared with white-light colonoscopy.