He Zhu1, Fudong Li1, Ke Tao1, Jing Wang1, Carissa Scurlock2, Xiaofei Zhang3, Hong Xu1. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, ChangChun, China. 2. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital Affiliated With Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the participation rate between CT colonography (CTC) and colonoscopy in screening population in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: A search was performed using the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. RCTs that included screening populations and reported participation number were assessed. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the bias and quality. Risk ratio (RR) was used to present the results. The non-participation rate was analyzed to verify the results of participation rate. RESULTS: Five of 760 studies, with a total of 15,974 invitees, were included. The participation rate was higher at CTC (28.8%) than colonoscopy (20.8%), although the difference did not reach statistical significance (RR = 1.26; p = 0.070; I2 = 90.3%). The non-participation rate at CTC was significantly lower than colonoscopy (RR = 0.92; p = 0.012; I2 = 86.7%). Subgroup analysis suggested both the participation and non-participation rate were with significant difference between reduced/no cathartic preparation CTC and colonoscopy. Cumulative meta-analysis showed both the participation rate and non-participation rate exhibited a trend over time and sample size. CONCLUSION: The participation rate was higher at CTC than colonoscopy, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. But the non-participation rate was with statistical difference. Screening population seemed more likely to participate the reduced/no cathartic preparation CTC. Statistical evidence was provided for more large RCTs are needed in the future. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The screening populations seem more likely to participate in the CTC, especially the reduced/no cathartic preparation CTC. The statistical evidence was provided for more large RCTs are needed in the future.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the participation rate between CT colonography (CTC) and colonoscopy in screening population in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: A search was performed using the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. RCTs that included screening populations and reported participation number were assessed. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the bias and quality. Risk ratio (RR) was used to present the results. The non-participation rate was analyzed to verify the results of participation rate. RESULTS: Five of 760 studies, with a total of 15,974 invitees, were included. The participation rate was higher at CTC (28.8%) than colonoscopy (20.8%), although the difference did not reach statistical significance (RR = 1.26; p = 0.070; I2 = 90.3%). The non-participation rate at CTC was significantly lower than colonoscopy (RR = 0.92; p = 0.012; I2 = 86.7%). Subgroup analysis suggested both the participation and non-participation rate were with significant difference between reduced/no cathartic preparation CTC and colonoscopy. Cumulative meta-analysis showed both the participation rate and non-participation rate exhibited a trend over time and sample size. CONCLUSION: The participation rate was higher at CTC than colonoscopy, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. But the non-participation rate was with statistical difference. Screening population seemed more likely to participate the reduced/no cathartic preparation CTC. Statistical evidence was provided for more large RCTs are needed in the future. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The screening populations seem more likely to participate in the CTC, especially the reduced/no cathartic preparation CTC. The statistical evidence was provided for more large RCTs are needed in the future.
Authors: Thomas R de Wijkerslooth; Margriet C de Haan; Esther M Stoop; Patrick M Bossuyt; Maarten Thomeer; Monique E van Leerdam; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Paul Fockens; Ernst J Kuipers; Jaap Stoker; Evelien Dekker Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Margriet C de Haan; Thomas R de Wijkerslooth; Esther Stoop; Patrick Bossuyt; Paul Fockens; Maarten Thomeer; Ernst J Kuipers; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Monique E van Leerdam; Evelien Dekker; Jaap Stoker Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2013-02-08
Authors: John T Edwards; Richard M Mendelson; Lin Fritschi; Noellene M Foster; Christopher Wood; Dianne Murray; Geoffrey M Forbes Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-12-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: L van Dam; T R de Wijkerslooth; M C de Haan; E M Stoop; P M M Bossuyt; P Fockens; M Thomeer; E J Kuipers; M E van Leerdam; M van Ballegooijen; J Stoker; E Dekker; E W Steyerberg Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2013-02-27 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: J E G IJspeert; C J Tutein Nolthenius; E J Kuipers; M E van Leerdam; C Y Nio; M G J Thomeer; K Biermann; M J van de Vijver; E Dekker; J Stoker Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-03-29 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Alex Ghanouni; Samuel G Smith; Steve Halligan; Andrew Plumb; Darren Boone; Molly Sweeney Magee; Jane Wardle; Christian von Wagner Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2012-06-16
Authors: Alex Ghanouni; Steve Halligan; Andrew Plumb; Darren Boone; Jane Wardle; Christian von Wagner Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-05-13 Impact factor: 5.315