Suppr超能文献

结肠镜插入和退出过程中均进行检查及息肉切除术,还是仅在退出过程中进行?一项系统评价和荟萃分析方案

Inspection and polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal or only during withdrawal of colonoscopy?: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis.

作者信息

Wei Yaping, Shen Guofan, Yang Yutong, Jin Zheng, Hu Wei, Zhu Ying

机构信息

Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.

出版信息

Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Jul 2;99(27):e20775. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000020775.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Current evidence supporting additional inspection and polypectomy during insertion of colonoscopy is limited. We plan to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the yield of inspection and polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal versus the traditional practice of inspection and polypectomy during withdrawal only.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Randomised controlled trials evaluating inspection and polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal versus inspection and polypectomy during withdrawal only will be searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar, from database inception to 31 May 2020. Data on study design, participant characteristics, and outcomes will be extracted. Primary outcomes to be assessed are adenoma detection rate. Secondary outcomes include polyp detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate, the mean number of adenomas per patient, polyp miss rate, the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy, procedure duration, cecal intubation rate, procedure difficulty, patient discomfort, sedation dose, and adverse events. Study quality will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Meta-analysis will be performed using RevMan V.5.3 statistical software. Data will be combined with random effect model. The results will be presented as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, and weighted/standard mean difference for continuous data. Publication bias will be visualized using funnel plots.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will not use primary data, and therefore formal ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and committee conferences.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER

INPLASY202050051.

摘要

引言

目前支持在结肠镜插入过程中进行额外检查和息肉切除术的证据有限。我们计划进行一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以比较在插入和退出过程中进行检查和息肉切除术与仅在退出过程中进行检查和息肉切除术的检出率。

方法与分析

将检索MEDLINE、EMBASE、科学网、考克兰图书馆、ClinicalTrials.gov和谷歌学术,从数据库建立至2020年5月31日,查找评估在插入和退出过程中进行检查和息肉切除术与仅在退出过程中进行检查和息肉切除术的随机对照试验。将提取有关研究设计、参与者特征和结果的数据。要评估的主要结局是腺瘤检出率。次要结局包括息肉检出率、高级别腺瘤检出率、每位患者的腺瘤平均数量、息肉漏诊率、每次结肠镜检查的腺瘤平均数量、操作时间、盲肠插管率、操作难度、患者不适、镇静剂量和不良事件。将使用考克兰偏倚风险工具评估研究质量。将使用RevMan V.5.3统计软件进行荟萃分析。数据将采用随机效应模型合并。结果将以二分类数据的风险比(RR)和连续数据的加权/标准化均值差表示。将使用漏斗图直观显示发表偏倚。

伦理与传播

本研究不会使用原始数据,因此无需正式的伦理批准。研究结果将通过同行评审期刊和委员会会议进行传播。

方案注册号

INPLASY202050051。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7310/7337486/a3c87675c2d7/medi-99-e20775-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验