van Rijn Jeroen C, Reitsma Johannes B, Stoker Jaap, Bossuyt Patrick M, van Deventer Sander J, Dekker Evelien
Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Academic Medical Center (University of Amsterdam), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Feb;101(2):343-50. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00390.x.
Colonoscopy is the best available method to detect and remove colonic polyps and therefore serves as the gold standard for less invasive tests such as virtual colonoscopy. Although gastroenterologists agree that colonoscopy is not infallible, there is no clarity on the numbers and rates of missed polyps. The purpose of this systematic review was to obtain summary estimates of the polyp miss rate as determined by tandem colonoscopy.
An extensive search was performed within PUBMED, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify studies in which patients had undergone two same-day colonoscopies with polypectomy. Random effects models based on the binomial distribution were used to calculate pooled estimates of miss rates.
Six studies with a total of 465 patients could be included. The pooled miss rate for polyps of any size was 22% (95% CI: 19-26%; 370/1,650 polyps). Adenoma miss rate by size was, respectively, 2.1% (95% CI: 0.3-7.3%; 2/96 adenomas > or =10 mm), 13% (95% CI: 8.0-18%; 16/124 adenomas 5-10 mm), and 26% (95% CI: 27-35%; 151/587 adenomas 1-5 mm). Three studies reported data on nonadenomatous polyps: zero of eight nonadenomatous polyps > or =10 mm were missed (0%; 95% CI: 0-36.9%) and 83 of 384 nonadenomatous polyps <10 mm were missed (22%; 95% CI: 18-26%).
Colonoscopy rarely misses polyps > or =10 mm, but the miss rate increases significantly in smaller sized polyps. The available evidence is based on a small number of studies with heterogeneous study designs and inclusion criteria.
结肠镜检查是检测和切除结肠息肉的最佳可用方法,因此是诸如虚拟结肠镜检查等侵入性较小检查的金标准。尽管胃肠病学家一致认为结肠镜检查并非万无一失,但对于漏诊息肉的数量和比率尚无明确认识。本系统评价的目的是获得经串联结肠镜检查确定的息肉漏诊率的汇总估计值。
在PUBMED、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆数据库中进行广泛检索,以识别患者接受了两次同日结肠镜息肉切除术的研究。基于二项分布的随机效应模型用于计算漏诊率的合并估计值。
纳入了6项研究,共465例患者。任何大小息肉的合并漏诊率为22%(95%可信区间:19 - 26%;1650个息肉中的370个)。按大小划分的腺瘤漏诊率分别为:≥10 mm的腺瘤为2.1%(95%可信区间:0.3 - 7.3%;96个腺瘤中的2个),5 - 10 mm的腺瘤为13%(95%可信区间:8.0 - 18%;124个腺瘤中的16个),1 - 5 mm的腺瘤为26%(95%可信区间:27 - 35%;587个腺瘤中的151个)。3项研究报告了非腺瘤性息肉的数据:≥10 mm的8个非腺瘤性息肉中无一漏诊(0%;95%可信区间:0 - 36.9%),<10 mm的384个非腺瘤性息肉中有83个漏诊(22%;95%可信区间:18 - 26%)。
结肠镜检查很少漏诊≥10 mm的息肉,但较小息肉的漏诊率显著增加。现有证据基于少数研究设计和纳入标准各异的研究。