Multimedia based education on bowel preparation improves adenoma detection rate: Systematic review & meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saurabh Chandan ◽  
Sumant Arora ◽  
Babu P. Mohan ◽  
Shahab R. Khan ◽  
Ojasvini C. Chandan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adenoma Detection Rate ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Adenoma Detection

scholarly journals Nurse Participation in Colonoscopy Observation versus the Colonoscopist Alone for Polyp and Adenoma Detection: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lei Xu ◽  
Yu Zhang ◽  
Haojun Song ◽  
Weihong Wang ◽  
Sijie Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Adenoma Detection Rate ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Significant Difference

The role of nurse participation (NP) in colonoscopy observation for polyp and adenoma detection is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate whether nurse participation can improve polyp and adenoma detection.Patients and Methods. The PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English. The outcome measurements included (1) the polyp and adenoma detection rate (PDR and ADR); (2) the advanced lesions detection rate; and (3) the mean polyp and adenoma detection rate per colonoscopy.Results. Three RCTs with a total of 1676 patients were included. The pooled data showed a significantly higher ADR in the NP group than colonoscopist alone (CA) (45.7% versus 39.3%; RR 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04–1.30). And it showed no significant difference in the PDR and advanced lesions detection rate between the two groups (RR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.95–1.37; RR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.91–2.00; resp.).Conclusions. Nurse participation during a colonoscopy can improve the ADR, whereas no benefit for the PDR and advanced lesions detection rate was observed. All RCTs included in the meta-analysis had high risk of bias. Thus, there is a need for new research that uses sound methodology to definitively address the research question under study.

Effect of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy on adenoma detection rate: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Endoscopy ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (09) ◽  
pp. 846-860 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Williet ◽  
Quentin Tournier ◽  
Chloé Vernet ◽  
Olivier Dumas ◽  
Leslie Rinaldi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adenoma Detection Rate ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Standard Colonoscopy

Abstract Background Yield of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) compared with standard colonoscopy is conflicting in terms of adenoma detection rate (ADR). A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) appears necessary. Methods PubMed and Google Scholar were searched in December 2017. Abstracts from Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week meetings were also searched to 2017. All RCTs comparing EAC with standard colonoscopy were included. Analysis was conducted by using the Mantel–Haenszel models. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I 2 test. Results Of the 265 articles reviewed, 12 RCTs were included, with a total of 8376 patients (EAC group 4225; standard colonoscopy group 4151). In the meta-analysis, ADR was significantly increased in the EAC group vs. the standard colonoscopy group (41.3 % vs. 34.2 %; risk ratio [RR] = 1.20, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.06 to 1.36; P = 0.003; I 2 = 79 %), especially for operators with low-to-moderate ADRs (< 35 %): RR = 1.51, 95 %CI 1.35 to 1.69; P < 0.001; I 2 = 43 %). In contrast, this benefit was not reached for operators with high ADRs (> 45 %): RR = 1.01, 95 %CI 0.93 to 1.09; P = 0.87; I 2 = 0.0 %). The mean number of adenomas per patient tended to be higher with EAC (mean difference = 0.11 adenomas/patient, 95 %CI – 0.17 to 0.38). Similar results were shown for polyp detection rates (61.6 % vs. 51.4 %; RR = 1.20, 95 %CI 1.06 to 1.36; P = 0.004). Use of the Endocuff did not impact the cecal intubation rate (95.1 % vs. 95.7 %; P = 0.08), or the procedure time compared with standard colonoscopy. Adverse events related to Endocuff were rare and exclusively mild mucosal erosion (4.0 %; 95 %CI 2.0 % to 8.0 %). Conclusion With moderate-quality evidence, this study showed an improvement in ADR with EAC without major adverse events, especially for operators with low-to-moderate ADRs.

Mo1744 Impact of Cap-Assisted Colonoscopy on Adenoma Detection Rate: A Meta-Analysis of High Quality Randomized Controlled Trials

2016 ◽  
Vol 150 (4) ◽  
pp. S769-S770
Author(s):  
Vijay Kanakadandi ◽  
Madhav Desai ◽  
Venkat Nutalapati ◽  
Sachin Wani ◽  
Ajay Bansal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adenoma Detection Rate ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Adenoma Detection
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document