These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparative Efficacy of Colonoscope Distal Attachment Devices in Increasing Rates of Adenoma Detection: A Network Meta-analysis.
    Author: Facciorusso A, Del Prete V, Buccino RV, Della Valle N, Nacchiero MC, Monica F, Cannizzaro R, Muscatiello N.
    Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol; 2018 Aug; 16(8):1209-1219.e9. PubMed ID: 29133257.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND & AIMS: Several add-on devices have been developed to increase rates of colon adenoma detection (ADR). We assessed their overall and comparative efficacy, and estimated absolute magnitude of benefit through a network meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched the PubMed/Medline and Embase database through March 2017 and identified 25 randomized controlled trials (comprising 16,103 patients) that compared the efficacy of add-on devices (cap; Endocuff; Arc Medical Design Ltd, Leeds, UK, and Endorings; Us Endoscopy, Mentor, OH) with each other or with standard colonoscopy. The primary outcome was ADR; secondary outcomes included rate of polyp detection, and rate of and time to cecal intubation. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses, and appraised quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. We estimated the magnitude of increase in ADR by low-performing endoscopists (baseline ADR, 10%) and high-performing endoscopists (baseline ADR, 40%) with use of these devices. RESULTS: Overall, distal attachment devices increased ADR compared with standard colonoscopy (relative risk [RR], 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.23; low-quality evidence), with potential absolute increases in ADR to 11.3% for low-performing endoscopists and to 45.2% for high-performing endoscopists. In a comparative evaluation, we found low-quality evidence that Endocuff increases ADR compared with standard colonoscopy (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.03-1.41), with anticipated increases in ADR to 12% for low-performing endoscopists and to 48% for high-performing endoscopists. We found very low quality evidence to support the use of Endorings (RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.86-3.36) or caps (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.96-1.19) vs standard colonoscopy for increasing ADR. The benefit of one distal attachment device over another was uncertain due to very low quality evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Based on network meta-analysis, we anticipate only modest improvement in ADRs with use of distal attachment devices, especially in low-performing endoscopists.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]