• Am. J. Gastroenterol. · Mar 2012

    Meta Analysis Comparative Study

    Comparison of the yield and miss rate of narrow band imaging and white light endoscopy in patients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy: a meta-analysis.

    • Shabana F Pasha, Jonathan A Leighton, Ananya Das, M Edwyn Harrison, Suryakanth R Gurudu, Francisco C Ramirez, David E Fleischer, and Virender K Sharma.
    • Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA. pasha.shabana@mayo.edu
    • Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2012 Mar 1; 107 (3): 363-70; quiz 371.

    ObjectivesColonoscopy has an appreciable miss rate for adenomas and colorectal cancer. The goal of advanced endoscopic imaging is to improve lesion detection. Compared with standard definition, high-definition (HD) colonoscopes have the advantage of increased field of visualization and higher resolution; narrow band imaging (NBI) utilizes narrow band filters for enhanced visualization of surface architecture and capillary pattern. The objective of this study was to compare the yield and miss rates of HD-NBI and HD-WLE (white light endoscopy) for the detection of colon polyps using meta-analysis.MethodsA recursive literature search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the yield of HD-NBI and HD-WLE for detection of colon polyps in patients undergoing screening/surveillance colonoscopy. Authors were contacted for missing data. In RCT with tandem colonoscopy (RCT-t), findings from the first-pass examinations were used in the yield analysis and from the tandem pass for the miss rate analysis. Data on the yield of polyps were extracted, pooled, and analyzed using RevMan 4.2.9 software. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the pooled data for the yield and miss rates of NBI and WLE were calculated. A fixed effect model (FEM) was used for analyses without, and a random effect model (REM) for analyses with heterogeneity.ResultsThe yield analysis revealed no significant difference between HD-NBI and HD-WLE for the detection of adenomas (six studies; n=2,284; OR: 1.01; CI: 0.74-1.37; REM); patients with polyps (six studies; n=2,275; OR: 1.15; CI: 0.8-1.64; REM); patients with adenomas (four studies; n=2,177; OR: 1.0; CI: 0.83-1.20; FEM); detection of adenomas <10 mm (five studies; n=1,618; OR: 1.32; CI: 0.92-1.88; FEM); flat adenomas (five studies; n=1,675; OR: 1.26; CI: 0.62-2.57; REM); and flat adenomas per patient (five studies; n=2,200; OR: 1.63; CI: 0.71-3.74; REM). The miss rate analysis revealed no difference in polyp miss rate (three studies; n=524; OR: 1.17; CI: 0.8-1.71; FEM) or adenoma miss rate (three studies; n=524; OR: 0.65; CI: 0.4-1.06; FEM) between the two techniques.ConclusionsCompared with HD-WLE, HD-NBI does not increase the yield of colon polyps, adenomas, or flat adenomas, nor does it decrease the miss rate of colon polyps or adenomas in patients undergoing screening/surveillance colonoscopy.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…