High definition colonoscopy vs. standard video endoscopy for the detection of colonic polyps: A meta-analysis

Endoscopy

Volumn 43, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 499-505

  Subramanian, V ^a   Mannath, J ^a   Hawkey, C J ^a   Ragunath, K ^a  

^a NOTTINGHAM UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADENOMATOUS POLYP; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER RISK; CINAHL; COLON POLYP; COLONOSCOPY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; EMBASE; HIGH DEFINITION COLONOSCOPY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEDLINE; META ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VIDEOENDOSCOPY; COLON TUMOR; COLONOSCOPE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; METHODOLOGY; PATHOLOGY;

ADENOMATOUS POLYPS; COLONIC NEOPLASMS; COLONIC POLYPS; COLONOSCOPES; COLONOSCOPY; HUMANS;

EID: 80053654631     PISSN: 0013726X     EISSN: 14388812     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1256207     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Citarda F, Tomaselli G, Capocaccia R et al. Efficacy in standard clinical practice of colonoscopic polypectomy in reducing colorectal cancer incidence. Gut 2001; 48: 812-815 (Pubitemid 32476984)
2. Muller AD, Sonnenberg A. Prevention of colorectal cancer by flexible endoscopy and polypectomy. A case-control study of 32,702 veterans. Ann Intern Med 1995; 123: 904-910
3. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, O?brien MJ et al. Randomized comparison of surveillance intervals after colonoscopic removal of newly diagnosed adenomatous polyps. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 901-906 (Pubitemid 23086641)
4. van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J et al. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 343-350 (Pubitemid 43381678)
5. Singh H, Turner D, Xue L et al. Risk of developing colorectal cancer following a negative colonoscopy examination: evidence for a 10-year interval between colonoscopies. JAMA 2006; 295: 2366-2373 (Pubitemid 43788104)
6. Matsushita M, Hajiro K, Okazaki K et al. Efficacy of total colonoscopy with a transparent cap in comparison with colonoscopy without the cap. Endoscopy 1998; 30: 444-447 (Pubitemid 28353551)
7. Rex DK, Chadalawada V, Helper DJ. Wide angle colonoscopy with a prototype instrument: impact on miss rates and efficiency as determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 2000-2005 (Pubitemid 37185796)
8. East JE, Suzuki N, Arebi N et al. Position changes improve visibility during colonoscope withdrawal: a randomized, blinded, crossover trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 263-269 (Pubitemid 46148890)
9. Triadafilopoulos G, Watts HD, Higgins J et al. A novel retrograde-viewing auxiliary imaging device (Third Eye Retroscope) improves the detection of simulated polyps in anatomic models of the colon. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 139-144 (Pubitemid 44932165)
10. Le Rhun M, Coron E, Parlier D et al. High resolution colonoscopy with chromoscopy versus standard colonoscopy for the detection of colonic neoplasia: a randomized study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 4: 349-354 (Pubitemid 43343892)
11. Rex DK, Helbig CC. High yields of small and flat adenomas with highdefinition colonoscopes using either white light or narrow band imaging. Gastroenterology 2007; 133: 42-47 (Pubitemid 47031129)
12. Buchner AM, Shahid MW, Heckman MG et al. High-definition colonoscopy detects colorectal polyps at a higher rate than standard whitelight colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 364-370
13. Burke CA, Choure AG, Sanaka MR, Lopez R. A Comparison of high-definition versus conventional colonoscopes for polyp detection. Dig Dis Sci 2010; 55: 1716-1720
14. East JE, Stavrindis M, Thomas-Gibson S et al. A comparative study of standard vs. high definition colonoscopy for adenoma and hyperplastic polyp detection with optimized withdrawal technique. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008; 28: 768-776
15. Pellise M, Fernandez-Esparrach G, Cardenas A et al. Impact of wide-angle, high-definition endoscopy in the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1062-1068
16. Tribonias G, Theodoropoulou A, Konstantinidis K et al. Comparison of standard vs high-definition, wide-angle colonoscopy for polyp detection: a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis 2009 [Epub ahead of print.]
17. Brown SR, Baraza W, Hurlstone P. Chromoscopy versus conventional endoscopy for the detection of polyps in the colon and rectum. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007 CD006439
18. Adler A, Pohl H, Papanikolaou IS et al. A prospective randomised study on narrow-band imaging versus conventional colonoscopy for adenoma detection: does narrow-band imaging induce a learning effect? Gut 2008; 57: 59-64
19. Adler A, Aschenbeck J, Yenerim T et al. Narrow-band versus white-light high definition television endoscopic imaging for screening colonoscopy: a prospective randomized trial. Gastroenterology 2009; 136: 410-416
20. Hoffman A, Sar F, Goetz M et al. High definition colonoscopy combined with i-Scan is superior in the detection of colorectal neoplasias compared to standard video colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 827-833
21. Aminalai A, Rosch T, Aschenbeck J et al. Live image processing does not increase adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: a randomized comparison between FICE and conventional imaging (Berlin Colonoscopy Project 5, BECOP-5). Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 2383-2388
22. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-188 (Pubitemid 17189972)
23. Cochrane WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 1954; 10: 101-129
24. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557-560 (Pubitemid 37088507)
25. Egger M, Davey SG, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315: 629-634 (Pubitemid 27387172)
26. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB et al. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003; 3: 25
27. Thompson SG, Higgins JP. How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med 2002; 21: 1559-1573 (Pubitemid 34746063)
28. Deenadayalu VP, Chadalawada V, Rex DK. 170 degreeswide-angle colonoscope: effect on efficiency and miss rates. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 2138-2142 (Pubitemid 39524703)
29. Fatima H, Rex DK, Rothstein R et al. Cecal insertion and withdrawal times with wide-angle versus standard colonoscopes: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6: 109-114 (Pubitemid 50008421)