Suppr超能文献

不同内镜检查方式对结直肠病变的检测比较:一项网状Meta分析和系统评价

Comparison of the detection of colorectal lesions in different endoscopic modalities: A network meta-analysis and systematic review.

作者信息

Li Lifu, Ou Yinghua, Yue Hui, Sun Hong, Chen Peisheng, Liu Suying, He Fengjian, Peng Qianqian, Deng Sanhua

机构信息

Department of Gastroenterology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510000, P.R. China.

Department of Gastroenterology, Nanfang Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510000, P.R. China.

出版信息

Exp Ther Med. 2019 Jul;18(1):154-162. doi: 10.3892/etm.2019.7535. Epub 2019 Apr 30.

Abstract

A colonoscopy is considered to be the standard diagnostic test used to detect early colorectal lesions. Detection rates are expected to improve with optimised visualisation. A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate detection efficiency in several colonoscopic modalities. Relevant articles were identified in searches of the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. The modalities, comprising of standard-definition white light (SDWL), high-definition white light (HDWL), narrow-band imaging (NBI), autofluorescence imaging (AFI), PENTAX image enhanced technology (i-SCAN), Fuji Intelligent Color Enhancement (FICE), dye-based chromoendoscopy and novel image enhanced systems, including blue laser imaging (BLI) and linked color imaging (LCI), were compared to identify the most efficient modalities that could be used to detect colorectal lesions. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. As a result, 40 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Overall, in the network meta-analyses, NBI (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.04-1.58), FICE (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.11-1.77), chromoendoscopy (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.22-1.93) and AFI (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.07-2.87) were significantly better compared with SDWL at identifying adenoma in patients, and chromoendoscopy also proved significantly superior to HDWL (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06-1.60). In pairwise analyses, it was demonstrated that chromoendoscopy was significantly superior to HDWL at detecting the number of polyps (MD, -1.11; 95% CI, -1.46, -0.76) and flat lesions (MD, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.49, -0.10) per subject. Additionally, FICE detected a significantly greater number of subjects with polyps (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.96) and NBI was significantly better at detecting the number of subjects with flat lesions (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60-0.99) compared with HDWL. Based on the meta-analysis, NBI, FICE and AFI were significantly better compared with SDWL at detecting patients with adenoma. Additionally, chromoendoscopy was significantly better than SDWL and HDWL at detecting the number of colorectal adenoma, however additional studies are needed to confirm these findings.

摘要

结肠镜检查被认为是用于检测早期结直肠病变的标准诊断测试。随着可视化的优化,检测率有望提高。进行了一项系统评价和网络荟萃分析,以评估几种结肠镜检查方式的检测效率。在PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆数据库搜索中确定了相关文章。对包括标准清晰度白光(SDWL)、高清晰度白光(HDWL)、窄带成像(NBI)、自体荧光成像(AFI)、宾得图像增强技术(i-SCAN)、富士智能色彩增强(FICE)、基于染料的色素内镜检查以及新型图像增强系统(包括蓝光激光成像(BLI)和联动成像(LCI))等方式进行比较,以确定可用于检测结直肠病变的最有效方式。计算了比值比(OR)和95%置信区间(CI)的平均差(MD)。结果,40项研究符合纳入标准。总体而言,在网络荟萃分析中,在识别患者腺瘤方面,NBI(OR,1.29;95%CI,1.04 - 1.58)、FICE(OR,1.39;95%CI,1.11 - 1.77)、色素内镜检查(OR,1.53;95%CI,1.22 - 1.93)和AFI(OR,1.81;95%CI,1.07 - 2.87)与SDWL相比显著更好,并且色素内镜检查也被证明显著优于HDWL(OR,1.30;95%CI,1.06 - 1.60)。在成对分析中,结果表明色素内镜检查在检测每位受试者的息肉数量(MD,-1.11;95%CI,-1.46,-0.76)和平坦病变数量(MD,-0.30;95%CI,-0.49,-0.10)方面显著优于HDWL。此外,与HDWL相比,FICE检测出息肉患者的数量显著更多(OR,0.78;95%CI,0.64 - 0.96),NBI在检测平坦病变患者数量方面显著更好(OR,0.77;95%CI,0.60 - 0.99)。基于荟萃分析,在检测腺瘤患者方面,NBI、FICE和AFI与SDWL相比显著更好。此外,在检测结直肠腺瘤数量方面,色素内镜检查显著优于SDWL和HDWL,然而需要更多研究来证实这些发现。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

2
[Not Available].[不可用]。
Adv Lab Med. 2024 May 20;5(3):283-290. doi: 10.1515/almed-2024-0060. eCollection 2024 Sep.
7
Electronic chromo-endoscopy: technical details and a clinical perspective.电子染色内镜检查:技术细节与临床展望。
Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 Jan 25;7:6. doi: 10.21037/tgh-19-373. eCollection 2022.

本文引用的文献

1
Advances in image enhancement in colonoscopy for detection of adenomas.结肠镜检查中用于检测腺瘤的图像增强技术的进展。
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 May;14(5):305-314. doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2017.18. Epub 2017 Mar 15.
7
PDR or ADR as a quality indicator for colonoscopy.PDR 或 ADR 作为结肠镜检查的质量指标。
Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Jun;108(6):1000-2. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2013.99.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验