Effect of add-on devices with projections on screening colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.1 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Annals of Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2023-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-03 DOI:10.20524/aog.2023.0820
Magdalini Manti, Georgios Tziatzios, Antonio Facciorusso, Apostolis Papaefthymiou, Daryl Ramai, Ioannis Papanikolaou, Cesare Hassan, Konstantinos Triantafyllou, Konstantina Paraskeva, Paraskevas Gkolfakis
{"title":"Effect of add-on devices with projections on screening colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Magdalini Manti,&nbsp;Georgios Tziatzios,&nbsp;Antonio Facciorusso,&nbsp;Apostolis Papaefthymiou,&nbsp;Daryl Ramai,&nbsp;Ioannis Papanikolaou,&nbsp;Cesare Hassan,&nbsp;Konstantinos Triantafyllou,&nbsp;Konstantina Paraskeva,&nbsp;Paraskevas Gkolfakis","doi":"10.20524/aog.2023.0820","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Add-on devices with projections, e.g., Endocuff, Endocuff Vision, EndoRings, and Wingcap, placed on the distal tip of the colonoscope promise to improve the detection of precancerous lesions. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the performance of these devices exclusively among individuals undergoing colonoscopy for screening purpose.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A computerized literature search was performed across MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials that compared standard colonoscopy (SC) to procedures using add-on devices. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR), while secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate (PDR), advanced ADR (AADR), and sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR). The effect size on study outcomes was calculated using a random-effects model and presented as the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven studies enrolling a total of 5785 patients were included. The use of add-on-devices with projections was associated with a higher ADR compared to SC: 45.9% vs. 41.1%; RR 1.18, 95%CI 1.02-1.37; P=0.03; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup>=79%. Although PDR was higher in screening colonoscopies assisted by add-on devices as compared to SC, the difference failed to reach significance: 55.1% vs. 50.8%; RR 1.10, 95%CI 0.96-1.26; P=0.17; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup>=75%. No difference was found between procedures assisted by add-on devices with projections and SC colonoscopies in terms of AADR (18.5% vs. 17.6%; RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.79-1.27; P=0.98; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup>=56%) or SSLDR (6.8% vs. 5.8%; RR 1.17, 95%CI 0.95-1.44; P=0.15; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup>=0%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Colonoscopy assisted by add-on devices with projections achieves a better ADR compared to SC among individuals undergoing screening for bowel cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":7978,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/15/f3/AnnGastroenterol-36-533.PMC10433254.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20524/aog.2023.0820","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Add-on devices with projections, e.g., Endocuff, Endocuff Vision, EndoRings, and Wingcap, placed on the distal tip of the colonoscope promise to improve the detection of precancerous lesions. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the performance of these devices exclusively among individuals undergoing colonoscopy for screening purpose.

Methods: A computerized literature search was performed across MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials that compared standard colonoscopy (SC) to procedures using add-on devices. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR), while secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate (PDR), advanced ADR (AADR), and sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR). The effect size on study outcomes was calculated using a random-effects model and presented as the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results: Seven studies enrolling a total of 5785 patients were included. The use of add-on-devices with projections was associated with a higher ADR compared to SC: 45.9% vs. 41.1%; RR 1.18, 95%CI 1.02-1.37; P=0.03; I2=79%. Although PDR was higher in screening colonoscopies assisted by add-on devices as compared to SC, the difference failed to reach significance: 55.1% vs. 50.8%; RR 1.10, 95%CI 0.96-1.26; P=0.17; I2=75%. No difference was found between procedures assisted by add-on devices with projections and SC colonoscopies in terms of AADR (18.5% vs. 17.6%; RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.79-1.27; P=0.98; I2=56%) or SSLDR (6.8% vs. 5.8%; RR 1.17, 95%CI 0.95-1.44; P=0.15; I2=0%).

Conclusion: Colonoscopy assisted by add-on devices with projections achieves a better ADR compared to SC among individuals undergoing screening for bowel cancer.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
带投影的附加装置对结肠镜筛查的影响:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景:在结肠镜远端放置带有投影的附加设备,如Endouff、Endouff Vision、EndoRings和Wingcap,有望提高对癌前病变的检测。我们进行了一项荟萃分析,专门在接受结肠镜检查进行筛查的个体中评估这些设备的性能。方法:在MEDLINE和Cochrane Library数据库中进行计算机化文献检索,以进行随机对照试验,将标准结肠镜检查(SC)与使用附加设备的程序进行比较。主要结果是腺瘤检出率(ADR),次要结果包括息肉检出率(PDR)、晚期ADR(AADR)和无柄锯齿状病变检出率(SSLDR)。使用随机效应模型计算对研究结果的影响大小,并以风险比(RR)和95%置信区间(CI)表示。结果:包括7项研究,共纳入5785名患者。与SC相比,使用带投影的附加装置与更高的ADR相关:45.9%对41.1%;rr1.18,95%CI1.02-1.37;P=0.03;I2=79%。尽管与SC相比,PDR在附加设备辅助的结肠镜筛查中更高,但差异未达到显著性:55.1%对50.8%;rr1.10,95%CI 0.96-1.26;P=0.17;I2=75%。在AADR(18.5%对17.6%;RR 1.00,95%CI 0.79-1.27;P=0.98;I2=56%)或SSLDR(6.8%对5.8%;RR 1.17,95%CI 0.95-1.44;P=0.15;I2=0%)方面,由带投影的附加装置辅助的程序和SC结肠镜检查之间没有发现差异癌症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Gastroenterology
Annals of Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
期刊最新文献
Inflammatory bowel disease burden in the Middle East and North Africa Region: a comprehensive analysis of incidence, prevalence, and mortality from 1990-2019. Meandering main pancreatic duct syndrome: a single-center cohort study and aggregated review. Micronutrient deficiencies in older patients with inflammatory bowel disease are not associated with worse adverse clinical outcome rates. Safe outpatient discharge after gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation and analgesia: a systematic literature review. The effect of shortening vasoactive drug durations alongside endoscopic therapy in esophageal variceal bleeding: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1