AIM: To assess the role of hyoscine for polyp detection during colonoscopy. METHODS: Studies (randomized controlled trials or RCTs) that compared the use of hyoscine vs no hyoscine or placebo for polyp detection during colonoscopy were included in our analysis. A search on multiple databases was performed in September 2013 with search terms being "hyoscine and colonoscopy", "hyoscine and polyp", "hyoscine and adenoma", "antispasmotic and colonoscopy", "antispasmotic and adenoma", and "antispasmotic and polyp". Jadad scoring was used to assess the quality of studies. The efficacy of hyoscine was analyzed using Mantel-Haenszel model for polyp and adenoma detection with odds ratio (OR). The I (2) measure of inconsistency was used to assess heterogeneity (P < 0.05 or I (2) > 50%). Statistical analysis was performed by RevMan 5.1. Funnel plots was used to assess publication bias. RESULTS: The search of the electronic databases identified 283 articles. Of these articles, eight published RCTs performed at various locations in Europe, Asia, and Australia were included in our meta-analysis, seven published as manuscripts and one published as an abstract (n = 2307). All the studies included patients with a hyoscine and a no hyoscine/placebo group and were of adequate quality (Jadad score ≥ 2). Eight RCTs assessed the polyp detection rate (PDR) (n = 2307). The use of hyoscine demonstrated no statistically significant difference as compared to no hyoscine or placebo for PDR (OR = 1.06; 95%CI: 0.89-1.25; P = 0.51). Five RCTs assessed the adenoma detection rate (ADR) (n = 2015). The use of hyoscine demonstrated no statistically significant difference as compared to no hyoscine or placebo for ADR (OR = 1.12; 95%CI: 0.92-1.37; P = 0.25). Furthermore, the timing of hyoscine administration (given at cecal intubation or pre-procedure) demonstrated no differences in PDR compared to no hyoscine or placebo. Publication bias or heterogeneity was not observed for any of the outcomes. CONCLUSION: Hyoscine use in patients undergoing colonoscopy does not appear to significantly increase the detection of polyps or adenomas.
AIM: To assess the role of hyoscine for polyp detection during colonoscopy. METHODS: Studies (randomized controlled trials or RCTs) that compared the use of hyoscine vs no hyoscine or placebo for polyp detection during colonoscopy were included in our analysis. A search on multiple databases was performed in September 2013 with search terms being "hyoscine and colonoscopy", "hyoscine and polyp", "hyoscine and adenoma", "antispasmotic and colonoscopy", "antispasmotic and adenoma", and "antispasmotic and polyp". Jadad scoring was used to assess the quality of studies. The efficacy of hyoscine was analyzed using Mantel-Haenszel model for polyp and adenoma detection with odds ratio (OR). The I (2) measure of inconsistency was used to assess heterogeneity (P < 0.05 or I (2) > 50%). Statistical analysis was performed by RevMan 5.1. Funnel plots was used to assess publication bias. RESULTS: The search of the electronic databases identified 283 articles. Of these articles, eight published RCTs performed at various locations in Europe, Asia, and Australia were included in our meta-analysis, seven published as manuscripts and one published as an abstract (n = 2307). All the studies included patients with a hyoscine and a no hyoscine/placebo group and were of adequate quality (Jadad score ≥ 2). Eight RCTs assessed the polyp detection rate (PDR) (n = 2307). The use of hyoscine demonstrated no statistically significant difference as compared to no hyoscine or placebo for PDR (OR = 1.06; 95%CI: 0.89-1.25; P = 0.51). Five RCTs assessed the adenoma detection rate (ADR) (n = 2015). The use of hyoscine demonstrated no statistically significant difference as compared to no hyoscine or placebo for ADR (OR = 1.12; 95%CI: 0.92-1.37; P = 0.25). Furthermore, the timing of hyoscine administration (given at cecal intubation or pre-procedure) demonstrated no differences in PDR compared to no hyoscine or placebo. Publication bias or heterogeneity was not observed for any of the outcomes. CONCLUSION:Hyoscine use in patients undergoing colonoscopy does not appear to significantly increase the detection of polyps or adenomas.
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: J D Hardcastle; J O Chamberlain; M H Robinson; S M Moss; S S Amar; T W Balfour; P D James; C M Mangham Journal: Lancet Date: 1996-11-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Ram C Tiwari; Taylor Murray; Asma Ghafoor; Alicia Samuels; Elizabeth Ward; Eric J Feuer; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2004 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
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: D Krueger; K Michel; S Allam; T Weiser; I E Demir; G O Ceyhan; F Zeller; M Schemann Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2013-05-19 Impact factor: 3.598