Sheng Bing Zhao1,2, Hui Wan3, Hong Yu Fu2, Zhen Xiu Liu4, Qing Song Wang1, Lei Ji1, Zhao Shen Li2, Yu Bai2. 1. Student Brigade, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China. 2. Department of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China. 3. Education Office, Graduate School, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China. 4. Jiangsu Province Key Laboratory of Anesthesiology, Xuzhou Medical College, Xuzhou, Jiangsu Province, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although trials assessing the effectiveness of position changes during colonoscopy withdrawal have been reported, there has been no agreement whether such position changes actually improve the polyp detection rate (PDR) or adenoma detection rate (ADR). This article aimed to address this issue by performing a systematic review. METHODS: Relevant studies from databases including PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library and Science Citation Index were retrieved. Two reviewers independently identified potentially relevant studies. Outcome measures were PDR, ADR and bowel distention. RESULTS: Eight studies were included, of which seven were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A non-randomized controlled trial and all four cross-over RCTs reported significant improvement in PDR, ADR and bowel distention with position change during colonoscopic withdrawal, while three parallel-group RCTs did not confirm its effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The conflicting results of high-quality trials indicate that the effectiveness of position change during colonoscopy withdrawal on PDR, ADR and bowel distension is uncertain. Thus, position change during colonoscopy withdrawal should not be routinely applied until future studies demonstrate its efficacy.
OBJECTIVE: Although trials assessing the effectiveness of position changes during colonoscopy withdrawal have been reported, there has been no agreement whether such position changes actually improve the polyp detection rate (PDR) or adenoma detection rate (ADR). This article aimed to address this issue by performing a systematic review. METHODS: Relevant studies from databases including PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library and Science Citation Index were retrieved. Two reviewers independently identified potentially relevant studies. Outcome measures were PDR, ADR and bowel distention. RESULTS: Eight studies were included, of which seven were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A non-randomized controlled trial and all four cross-over RCTs reported significant improvement in PDR, ADR and bowel distention with position change during colonoscopic withdrawal, while three parallel-group RCTs did not confirm its effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The conflicting results of high-quality trials indicate that the effectiveness of position change during colonoscopy withdrawal on PDR, ADR and bowel distension is uncertain. Thus, position change during colonoscopy withdrawal should not be routinely applied until future studies demonstrate its efficacy.