AIM: To investigate the benefits of hyoscine butylbromide in polyp detection during colonoscopy by a meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Science Citation Index up to September 2013, were searched. The primary outcome was polyp detection rate, and the secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate. The meta-analysis was performed using the free software Review Manager. Differences observed between the treated and the control groups were expressed as odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). A fixed-effects model was used to pool data when statistical heterogeneity was absent. If statistical heterogeneity was present (P < 0.05), a random-effects model was used. RESULTS: The initial search identified nine articles. After screening, five RCTs with a total of 1998 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Of the five studies, all described a comparison of baseline patient characteristics and showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Among the 1998 patients, 1006 received hyoscine butylbromide and 992 were allocated to the control group, and the polyp detection rate was reported. There were no significant differences between the treated and the control group (OR = 1.09, 95%CI: 0.91-1.31, P = 0.33). Four RCTs included 1882 patients, of whom 948 received hyoscine butylbromide, and the adenoma detection rate was reported. There were no significant differences between the treated and the control group (OR = 1.13, 95%CI: 0.92-1.38, P = 0.24). CONCLUSION: The use of hyoscine butylbromide did not significantly improve the polyp detection rate during colonoscopy.
AIM: To investigate the benefits of hyoscine butylbromide in polyp detection during colonoscopy by a meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Science Citation Index up to September 2013, were searched. The primary outcome was polyp detection rate, and the secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate. The meta-analysis was performed using the free software Review Manager. Differences observed between the treated and the control groups were expressed as odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). A fixed-effects model was used to pool data when statistical heterogeneity was absent. If statistical heterogeneity was present (P < 0.05), a random-effects model was used. RESULTS: The initial search identified nine articles. After screening, five RCTs with a total of 1998 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Of the five studies, all described a comparison of baseline patient characteristics and showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Among the 1998 patients, 1006 received hyoscine butylbromide and 992 were allocated to the control group, and the polyp detection rate was reported. There were no significant differences between the treated and the control group (OR = 1.09, 95%CI: 0.91-1.31, P = 0.33). Four RCTs included 1882 patients, of whom 948 received hyoscine butylbromide, and the adenoma detection rate was reported. There were no significant differences between the treated and the control group (OR = 1.13, 95%CI: 0.92-1.38, P = 0.24). CONCLUSION: The use of hyoscine butylbromide did not significantly improve the polyp detection rate during colonoscopy.
Authors: Douglas K Rex; John H Bond; Sidney Winawer; Theodore R Levin; Randall W Burt; David A Johnson; Lynne M Kirk; Scott Litlin; David A Lieberman; Jerome D Waye; James Church; John B Marshall; Robert H Riddell Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Craig A Munroe; Philip Lee; Andrew Copland; Kuan K Wu; Tonya Kaltenbach; Roy M Soetikno; Shai Friedland Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Jung Min Lee; Jae Hee Cheon; Jae Jun Park; Chang Mo Moon; Eun Soo Kim; Tae Il Kim; Won Ho Kim Journal: Hepatogastroenterology Date: 2010 Jan-Feb
Authors: Lik-man Mui; Enders K W Ng; Kang-chung Chan; Calvin S H Ng; Alex C M Au Yeung; Simon K C Chan; Simon K H Wong; S C Sydney Chung Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Sidney Winawer; Robert Fletcher; Douglas Rex; John Bond; Randall Burt; Joseph Ferrucci; Theodore Ganiats; Theodore Levin; Steven Woolf; David Johnson; Lynne Kirk; Scott Litin; Clifford Simmang Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Imran Ashraf; Sohail Ashraf; Sameer Siddique; Douglas L Nguyen; Abhishek Choudhary; Matthew L Bechtold Journal: World J Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2014-11-16
Authors: Colin J Rees; Roisin Bevan; Katharina Zimmermann-Fraedrich; Matthew D Rutter; Douglas Rex; Evelien Dekker; Thierry Ponchon; Michael Bretthauer; Jaroslaw Regula; Brian Saunders; Cesare Hassan; Michael J Bourke; Thomas Rösch Journal: Gut Date: 2016-10-08 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Carlos Eduardo Oliveira Dos Santos; Hamilton Moreira; Julio Carlos Pereira-Lima; Carmen Australia Paredes Marcondes Ribas; Fernanda de Quadros Onófrio; Alexandre Eduardo Augusti Czecko; Rafael Koerich Ramos; Caroline Aragão de Carvalho Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.365
Authors: Peel Jung; Su B Park; Hyung W Kim; Dae H Kang; Cheol W Choi; Su J Kim; Hyeong S Nam; Dae G Ryu; Joung B Hong; Dong J Kim Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 1.889