BACKGROUND: Conflicting data regarding the impact of fellow involvement during colonoscopy on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR) have been reported in the literature. AIMS: Our aim was to perform a meta-analysis to determine the impact of fellow participation during colonoscopy on the ADR and PDR. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, pertinent articles that reported ADR and/or PDR between attending physicians alone compared to gastroenterology fellows with attending physicians were obtained through database searches. Data was abstracted and pooled using a random effects model. The quality of each included study was ascertained using a modified version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool, and potential publication bias was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 14 articles that included 21,504 colonoscopies met the inclusion criteria. The overall PDR and ADR were 44.4 and 30.8%, respectively. No significant differences were found between participant characteristics and colonoscopies performed with or without fellow participation. No significant differences were found in the relative rate of ADR (1.04, 95% CI 0.94-1.15) or PDR (1.03, 95% CI 0.93-1.14) with or without a fellow. An important limitation is that none of the included studies randomized fellow involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Involvement of a fellow during colonoscopy did not affect adenoma and polyp detection rates.
BACKGROUND: Conflicting data regarding the impact of fellow involvement during colonoscopy on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR) have been reported in the literature. AIMS: Our aim was to perform a meta-analysis to determine the impact of fellow participation during colonoscopy on the ADR and PDR. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, pertinent articles that reported ADR and/or PDR between attending physicians alone compared to gastroenterology fellows with attending physicians were obtained through database searches. Data was abstracted and pooled using a random effects model. The quality of each included study was ascertained using a modified version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool, and potential publication bias was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 14 articles that included 21,504 colonoscopies met the inclusion criteria. The overall PDR and ADR were 44.4 and 30.8%, respectively. No significant differences were found between participant characteristics and colonoscopies performed with or without fellow participation. No significant differences were found in the relative rate of ADR (1.04, 95% CI 0.94-1.15) or PDR (1.03, 95% CI 0.93-1.14) with or without a fellow. An important limitation is that none of the included studies randomized fellow involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Involvement of a fellow during colonoscopy did not affect adenoma and polyp detection rates.
Authors: Douglas K Rex; John L Petrini; Todd H Baron; Amitabh Chak; Jonathan Cohen; Stephen E Deal; Brenda Hoffman; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Bret T Petersen; Michael A Safdi; Douglas O Faigel; Irving M Pike Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Jan J Koornstra; Sietske Corporaal; Wiesje M Giezen-Beintema; Sietske E de Vries; Hendrik M van Dullemen Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Konstantinos Triantafyllou; Athanasios D Sioulas; Theodora Kalli; Nikolaos Misailidis; Dimitrios Polymeros; Ioannis S Papanikolaou; George Karamanolis; Spiros D Ladas Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 2.260
Authors: Alexander J Eckardt; Joan Kheder; Anjali Basil; Taryn Silverstein; Krunal Patel; Mohamed Mahmoud; Yasir Al-Azzawi; Daniel Ellis; William Gillespie; Yoel Carrasquillo Vega; Sharina D Person; John M Levey Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2020-11-17