Paul P Shao1,2,3, Aileen Bui4,5,6, Tahmineh Romero4, Hui Jia5,6, Felix W Leung4,5,6. 1. David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, 757 Westwood Plaza, Suite 7236, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-7417, USA. pshao@mednet.ucla.edu. 2. VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, 11301 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA, USA. pshao@mednet.ucla.edu. 3. VA Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center, 6111 Plummer St, North Hills, CA, USA. pshao@mednet.ucla.edu. 4. David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, 757 Westwood Plaza, Suite 7236, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-7417, USA. 5. VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, 11301 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 6. VA Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center, 6111 Plummer St, North Hills, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A network meta-analysis showed that low-cost optimization of existing resources was as effective as distal add-on devices in increasing adenoma detection rate (ADR). We assessed the impacts of water exchange (WE), Endocuff, and cap colonoscopy on ADR and advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR). We hypothesized that WE may be superior at improving ADR and AADR. METHODS: The literature was searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported ADR as an outcome and included the keywords colonoscopy, and water exchange, Endocuff, or cap. We performed traditional network meta-analyses with random effect models comparing ADR and AADR of each method using air insufflation (AI) as the control and reported the odds ratios with 95% confidence interval. Performances were ranked based on P-score. RESULTS: Twenty-one RCTs met inclusion criteria. Fourteen RCTs also reported AADR. Both WE [1.46 (1.20-1.76)] and Endocuff [1.39 (1.17-1.66)] significantly increase ADR, while cap has no impact on ADR [1.00 (0.82-1.22)]. P-scores for WE (0.88), Endocuff (0.79), cap (0.17), and AI (0.17) suggest WE has the highest ADR. WE [1.38 (1.12-1.70)], but not Endocuff [0.96 (0.76-1.21)] or cap [1.06 (0.85-1.32)], significantly increases AADR. P-scores for WE (0.98), cap (0.50), AI (0.31), and Endocuff (0.21) suggest WE is more effective at increasing AADR. The results did not change after adjusting for age, proportion of males, and withdrawal time. CONCLUSION: WE may be the modality of choice to maximally improve ADR and AADR.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A network meta-analysis showed that low-cost optimization of existing resources was as effective as distal add-on devices in increasing adenoma detection rate (ADR). We assessed the impacts of water exchange (WE), Endocuff, and cap colonoscopy on ADR and advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR). We hypothesized that WE may be superior at improving ADR and AADR. METHODS: The literature was searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported ADR as an outcome and included the keywords colonoscopy, and water exchange, Endocuff, or cap. We performed traditional network meta-analyses with random effect models comparing ADR and AADR of each method using air insufflation (AI) as the control and reported the odds ratios with 95% confidence interval. Performances were ranked based on P-score. RESULTS: Twenty-one RCTs met inclusion criteria. Fourteen RCTs also reported AADR. Both WE [1.46 (1.20-1.76)] and Endocuff [1.39 (1.17-1.66)] significantly increase ADR, while cap has no impact on ADR [1.00 (0.82-1.22)]. P-scores for WE (0.88), Endocuff (0.79), cap (0.17), and AI (0.17) suggest WE has the highest ADR. WE [1.38 (1.12-1.70)], but not Endocuff [0.96 (0.76-1.21)] or cap [1.06 (0.85-1.32)], significantly increases AADR. P-scores for WE (0.98), cap (0.50), AI (0.31), and Endocuff (0.21) suggest WE is more effective at increasing AADR. The results did not change after adjusting for age, proportion of males, and withdrawal time. CONCLUSION: WE may be the modality of choice to maximally improve ADR and AADR.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adenoma detection rate (ADR); Advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR); Air insufflation (AI); Cap colonoscopy; Endocuff (EC); Water exchange (WE)
Authors: David A Lieberman; Douglas K Rex; Sidney J Winawer; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Theodore R Levin Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Douglas K Rex; Alessandro Repici; Seth A Gross; Cesare Hassan; Prasanna L Ponugoti; Jonathan R Garcia; Heather M Broadley; Jack C Thygesen; Andrew W Sullivan; William W Tippins; Samuel A Main; George J Eckert; Krishna C Vemulapalli Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2018-03-09 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Douglas A Corley; Christopher D Jensen; Amy R Marks; Wei K Zhao; Jeffrey K Lee; Chyke A Doubeni; Ann G Zauber; Jolanda de Boer; Bruce H Fireman; Joanne E Schottinger; Virginia P Quinn; Nirupa R Ghai; Theodore R Levin; Charles P Quesenberry Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-04-03 Impact factor: 91.245