Xiu-He Lv1, Bo-Ling Wang, Guo-Wu Cao. 1. Department of gastroenterology, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of narrow band imaging (NBI) for surveillance colonoscopy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is debatable. We aim to compare NBI versus other endoscopic techniques in surveillance of IBD basing on current evidences. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted for relevant studies. To assess the detection efficacy, we estimated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes. To assess the differentiation efficacy, we estimated sensitivity and specificity of NBI with reference to histology. All outcome variables were pooled using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was tested by the Q statistic and I statistic. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies involving 938 participants were included. Statistically significant differences were not found in the likelihood of detecting patients with dysplastic lesions [RR, 1.11; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.83-1.48] nor in the likelihood of detecting dysplastic lesions by targeted biopsies (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51-1.12) between NBI and other techniques, and there was also no difference in the likelihood of detecting dysplastic subtypes. NBI required shorter procedural time compared with other techniques (MD, -10.23; 95% CI, -11.53 to -8.92). The sensitivity and specificity of NBI to differentiate neoplastic lesions from non-neoplastic lesions were 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.77) and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.69-0.79), respectively, and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.7626. CONCLUSIONS: Although a shorter procedural time is needed, the clinical application of NBI for both dysplasia detection and neoplasia differentiation in IBD is not superior to other endoscopic techniques.
BACKGROUND: The role of narrow band imaging (NBI) for surveillance colonoscopy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is debatable. We aim to compare NBI versus other endoscopic techniques in surveillance of IBD basing on current evidences. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted for relevant studies. To assess the detection efficacy, we estimated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes. To assess the differentiation efficacy, we estimated sensitivity and specificity of NBI with reference to histology. All outcome variables were pooled using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was tested by the Q statistic and I statistic. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies involving 938 participants were included. Statistically significant differences were not found in the likelihood of detecting patients with dysplastic lesions [RR, 1.11; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.83-1.48] nor in the likelihood of detecting dysplastic lesions by targeted biopsies (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51-1.12) between NBI and other techniques, and there was also no difference in the likelihood of detecting dysplastic subtypes. NBI required shorter procedural time compared with other techniques (MD, -10.23; 95% CI, -11.53 to -8.92). The sensitivity and specificity of NBI to differentiate neoplastic lesions from non-neoplastic lesions were 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.77) and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.69-0.79), respectively, and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.7626. CONCLUSIONS: Although a shorter procedural time is needed, the clinical application of NBI for both dysplasia detection and neoplasia differentiation in IBD is not superior to other endoscopic techniques.