Yaron Niv1. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Rabin Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is defined as the number of colonoscopies with at least one adenoma, expressed as the ratio of the total number of colonoscopies performed. Recently, an application of a conversion factor to estimate the ADR from the polyp detection rate (PDR) was described. AIM: In this meta-analysis, we examined the correlation between ADR and PDR in the published studies and assessed the relative ratio of these ratios for a better and more accurate estimation. METHODS: English Medical literature searches were performed for 'PDR' AND 'ADR'. A meta-analysis was carried out for papers that fulfilled the inclusion criteria using comprehensive meta-analysis software. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies and 42 sets of data, including 31 623 patients, from nine countries published till 31 August 2017, were found. Funnel plot did not indicate a significant publication bias. relative ratio for ADR calculated from PDR was 0.688, 95% confidence intervals: 0.680-0.695, P value of less than 0.0001 in the meta-analysis fixed model. Heterogeneity (the proportion of inconsistency in individual studies) between studies was significant, with Q=492.753, d.f. (Q) 41, P<0.0001, and I 91.679. CONCLUSION: We found the ratio of 0.688 can be used to calculate ADR from PDR for the individual endoscopist or for a group of endoscopists before receiving the formal results from the pathology department.
BACKGROUND:Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is defined as the number of colonoscopies with at least one adenoma, expressed as the ratio of the total number of colonoscopies performed. Recently, an application of a conversion factor to estimate the ADR from the polyp detection rate (PDR) was described. AIM: In this meta-analysis, we examined the correlation between ADR and PDR in the published studies and assessed the relative ratio of these ratios for a better and more accurate estimation. METHODS: English Medical literature searches were performed for 'PDR' AND 'ADR'. A meta-analysis was carried out for papers that fulfilled the inclusion criteria using comprehensive meta-analysis software. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies and 42 sets of data, including 31 623 patients, from nine countries published till 31 August 2017, were found. Funnel plot did not indicate a significant publication bias. relative ratio for ADR calculated from PDR was 0.688, 95% confidence intervals: 0.680-0.695, P value of less than 0.0001 in the meta-analysis fixed model. Heterogeneity (the proportion of inconsistency in individual studies) between studies was significant, with Q=492.753, d.f. (Q) 41, P<0.0001, and I 91.679. CONCLUSION: We found the ratio of 0.688 can be used to calculate ADR from PDR for the individual endoscopist or for a group of endoscopists before receiving the formal results from the pathology department.
Authors: Eric Omar Then; Christopher Brana; Sriharsha Dadana; Srikanth Maddika; Andrew Ofosu; Sabrina Brana; Tina Wexler; Tagore Sunkara; Andrea Culliford; Vinaya Gaduputi Journal: Ann Gastroenterol Date: 2020-05-10