Suppr超能文献

EndoRings 对结肠腺瘤检出率的影响:一项随机试验的荟萃分析。

Impact of EndoRings on colon adenoma detection rate: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

机构信息

Department of Surgical and Medical Sciences, Section of Gastroenterology, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.

Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

出版信息

J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Feb;36(2):337-343. doi: 10.1111/jgh.15321. Epub 2020 Dec 1.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Evidence of a superior efficacy of EndoRings over standard colonoscopy in improving colon adenoma detection rate is lacking. We aimed to compare EndoRings and standard colonoscopy through a pairwise meta-analysis of randomized trials.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed/Medline and Embase database through July 2020 and identified five randomized controlled trials (recruiting 2751 patients). The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate; secondary outcomes included advanced and sessile serrated adenoma detection rate, mean adenoma per colonoscopy, cecal intubation rate, and time. We performed pairwise meta-analysis through a random-effects model and expressed data as risk ratio and 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Overall, pooled adenoma detection rate was 53.9% (49-58.8%) with EndoRings and 49.1% (42-56.1%) with standard colonoscopy (risk ratio 1.05, 0.95-1.17). Advanced adenoma detection (risk ratio 0.91, 0.74-1.12), sessile serrated detection rate (risk ratio 1.10, 0.81-1.50), and polyp detection rate (risk ratio 1.06, 0.98-1.15) were similar between the two groups. Likewise, mean adenoma per colonoscopy (mean difference 0.17, -0.09 to 0.43), cecal intubation rate (risk ratio 1.00, 0.99-1.01), and cecal intubation time (mean difference 0.20 min, -0.34 to 0.74) did not differ between the two add-on devices. No serious adverse event was observed.

CONCLUSION

EndoRings did not seem to significantly improve the diagnostic performance of colonoscopy. Further trials are needed to confirm these results.

摘要

背景与目的

目前缺乏内镜黏膜下剥离环(EndoRings)优于标准结肠镜检查提高结肠腺瘤检测率的证据。我们旨在通过随机试验的成对荟萃分析来比较 EndoRings 和标准结肠镜检查。

方法

我们通过 2020 年 7 月之前的 PubMed/Medline 和 Embase 数据库进行搜索,确定了五项随机对照试验(招募了 2751 名患者)。主要结局是腺瘤检测率;次要结局包括高级和无蒂锯齿状腺瘤检测率、每例结肠镜检查的平均腺瘤数、盲肠插管率和时间。我们通过随机效应模型进行成对荟萃分析,并以风险比和 95%置信区间表示数据。

结果

总体而言,EndoRings 组的腺瘤总检测率为 53.9%(49-58.8%),标准结肠镜组为 49.1%(42-56.1%)(风险比 1.05,0.95-1.17)。高级腺瘤检测(风险比 0.91,0.74-1.12)、无蒂锯齿状腺瘤检测率(风险比 1.10,0.81-1.50)和息肉检测率(风险比 1.06,0.98-1.15)在两组之间相似。同样,每例结肠镜检查的平均腺瘤数(平均差异 0.17,-0.09 至 0.43)、盲肠插管率(风险比 1.00,0.99-1.01)和盲肠插管时间(平均差异 0.20 分钟,-0.34 至 0.74)在两种附加装置之间也没有差异。没有观察到严重不良事件。

结论

EndoRings 似乎并没有显著提高结肠镜检查的诊断性能。需要进一步的试验来证实这些结果。

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