Literature DB >> 34617312

A comparison of 9-min colonoscopy withdrawal time and 6-min colonoscopy withdrawal time: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abhishek Bhurwal1, Puru Rattan2, Avik Sarkar1, Anish Patel1, Shahid Haroon1, Mihajlo Gjeorgjievski1, Vikas Bansal3, Hemant Mutneja4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The optimal colonoscopy withdrawal time is still a controversial topic. While several studies demonstrate that longer withdrawal time improves adenoma detection rate, others have contradicted these findings.
METHODS: Three independent reviewers performed a comprehensive review of all original articles published from inception to January 2021 and included studies reporting comparison of the two cohorts-(i) ≥ 6 but less than 9 min of colonoscopy withdrawal time (CWT) and (ii) ≥ 9 min of CWT. The outcome measures were the following: (i) adenoma detection rate (ADR), (ii) advanced ADR, and (iii) sessile serrated adenoma detection rate (SDR). The meta-analysis was performed, and the statistics were two-tailed.
RESULTS: A total of seven studies met the inclusion criteria after a thorough search of the literature was completed. The analysis revealed that ≥ 9 min of CWT had significantly higher odds of adenoma detection as compared with 6-9 min of CWT (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30-1.82; I2  = 93.7). Additionally, a significantly higher odds of sessile serrated adenoma detection (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.28-2.22; I2  = 0) and a trend towards higher odds of advanced adenoma detection (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.98-1.95, I2  = 90) were seen with CWT of at least 9 min when compared with 6-9 min of CWT.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis analysis provides further evidence that at least 9 min of CWT cohort had significantly higher ADR and SDR as compared with the at least 6 min but less than 9 min of cohort.
© 2021 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ADR; colonoscopy withdrawal time; meta-analysis; systematic review

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34617312     DOI: 10.1111/jgh.15701

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gastroenterol Hepatol        ISSN: 0815-9319            Impact factor:   4.029


  1 in total

Review 1.  Lessons learned: Preventable misses and near-misses of endoscopic procedures.

Authors:  Alla Turshudzhyan; Houman Rezaizadeh; Micheal Tadros
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2022-05-16
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.