Literature DB >> 22186978

Comparison of the yield and miss rate of narrow band imaging and white light endoscopy in patients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy: a meta-analysis.

Shabana F Pasha1, Jonathan A Leighton, Ananya Das, M Edwyn Harrison, Suryakanth R Gurudu, Francisco C Ramirez, David E Fleischer, Virender K Sharma.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Colonoscopy has an appreciable miss rate for adenomas and colorectal cancer. The goal of advanced endoscopic imaging is to improve lesion detection. Compared with standard definition, high-definition (HD) colonoscopes have the advantage of increased field of visualization and higher resolution; narrow band imaging (NBI) utilizes narrow band filters for enhanced visualization of surface architecture and capillary pattern. The objective of this study was to compare the yield and miss rates of HD-NBI and HD-WLE (white light endoscopy) for the detection of colon polyps using meta-analysis.
METHODS: A recursive literature search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the yield of HD-NBI and HD-WLE for detection of colon polyps in patients undergoing screening/surveillance colonoscopy. Authors were contacted for missing data. In RCT with tandem colonoscopy (RCT-t), findings from the first-pass examinations were used in the yield analysis and from the tandem pass for the miss rate analysis. Data on the yield of polyps were extracted, pooled, and analyzed using RevMan 4.2.9 software. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the pooled data for the yield and miss rates of NBI and WLE were calculated. A fixed effect model (FEM) was used for analyses without, and a random effect model (REM) for analyses with heterogeneity.
RESULTS: The yield analysis revealed no significant difference between HD-NBI and HD-WLE for the detection of adenomas (six studies; n=2,284; OR: 1.01; CI: 0.74-1.37; REM); patients with polyps (six studies; n=2,275; OR: 1.15; CI: 0.8-1.64; REM); patients with adenomas (four studies; n=2,177; OR: 1.0; CI: 0.83-1.20; FEM); detection of adenomas <10 mm (five studies; n=1,618; OR: 1.32; CI: 0.92-1.88; FEM); flat adenomas (five studies; n=1,675; OR: 1.26; CI: 0.62-2.57; REM); and flat adenomas per patient (five studies; n=2,200; OR: 1.63; CI: 0.71-3.74; REM). The miss rate analysis revealed no difference in polyp miss rate (three studies; n=524; OR: 1.17; CI: 0.8-1.71; FEM) or adenoma miss rate (three studies; n=524; OR: 0.65; CI: 0.4-1.06; FEM) between the two techniques.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with HD-WLE, HD-NBI does not increase the yield of colon polyps, adenomas, or flat adenomas, nor does it decrease the miss rate of colon polyps or adenomas in patients undergoing screening/surveillance colonoscopy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22186978     DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2011.436

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0002-9270            Impact factor:   10.864


  63 in total

Review 1.  Advanced endoscopic imaging to improve adenoma detection.

Authors:  Helmut Neumann; Andreas Nägel; Andrea Buda
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-03-16

2.  An Additional 30-s Observation of the Right-Sided Colon with Narrow Band Imaging Decreases Missed Polyps: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Naohisa Yoshida; Ken Inoue; Ritsu Yasuda; Ryohei Hirose; Osamu Dohi; Yuji Naito; Takaaki Murakami; Yutaka Inada; Kiyoshi Ogiso; Yukiko Morinaga; Mitsuo Kishimoto; Rafiz Abdul Rani; Yoshito Itoh
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2018-09-19       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 3.  Rationale for and clinical benefits of colonoscopy with narrow band imaging: pathological prediction and colorectal screening.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Aihara; Shoichi Saito; Hisao Tajiri
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2012-10-09       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Risk factors associated with missed colorectal flat adenoma: a multicenter retrospective tandem colonoscopy study.

Authors:  Li Xiang; Qiang Zhan; Xin-Hua Zhao; Ya-Dong Wang; Sheng-Li An; Yang-Zhi Xu; Ai-Min Li; Wei Gong; Yang Bai; Fa-Chao Zhi; Si-De Liu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-08-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  Can Technology Improve the Quality of Colonoscopy?

Authors:  Selvi Thirumurthi; William A Ross; Gottumukkala S Raju
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2016-07

6.  Can optical diagnosis of small colon polyps be accurate? Comparing standard scope without narrow banding to high definition scope with narrow banding.

Authors:  Hassan Ashktorab; Firoozeh Etaati; Farahnaz Rezaeean; Mehdi Nouraie; Mansour Paydar; Hassan Hassanzadeh Namin; Andrew Sanderson; Rehana Begum; Kawtar Alkhalloufi; Hassan Brim; Adeyinka O Laiyemo
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 7.  High-resolution microendoscopy in differentiating neoplastic from non-neoplastic colorectal polyps.

Authors:  Justin S Louie; Richa Shukla; Rebecca Richards-Kortum; Sharmila Anandasabapathy
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-06-04       Impact factor: 3.043

Review 8.  Indications, stains and techniques in chromoendoscopy.

Authors:  P J Trivedi; B Braden
Journal:  QJM       Date:  2012-10-24

9.  Comparison of Pentax HiLine and Olympus Lucera systems at screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Alexey Chernolesskiy; David Swain; James C Lee; Gareth D Corbett; Ewen Ab Cameron
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2013-02-16

10.  In vivo diagnostic accuracy of high-resolution microendoscopy in differentiating neoplastic from non-neoplastic colorectal polyps: a prospective study.

Authors:  Neil D Parikh; Daniel Perl; Michelle H Lee; Brijen Shah; Yuki Young; Shannon S Chang; Richa Shukla; Alexandros D Polydorides; Erin Moshier; James Godbold; Elinor Zhou; Josephine Mitcham; Rebecca Richards-Kortum; Sharmila Anandasabapathy
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-12-03       Impact factor: 10.864

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.