Endocuff‐assisted colonoscopy versus cap‐assisted colonoscopy for adenoma detection rate: A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background and Aims Add‐on devices have been widely used in clinical practice. The aim of this meta‐analysis was to compare the adenoma detection rate between Endocuff‐assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and cap‐assisted colonoscopy (CAC). Methods PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases were searched....

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of gastroenterology and hepatology Vol. 35; no. 12; pp. 2066 - 2073
Main Authors Li, Ai, Yang, Jing‐Ze, Yang, Xiao‐Xiao, Feng, Bing‐Cheng, Zhang, Ming‐Ming, Qu, Jun‐Yan, Zhou, Ru‐Chen, Wang, Peng, Li, Li‐Xiang, Zuo, Xiu‐Li, Li, Yan‐Qing
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Australia Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.12.2020
Subjects
Adenoma
adenoma detection rate
cap‐assisted colonoscopy
Cecum
Clinical trials
Colon
Colonoscopy
colorectal cancer
Endocuff
Intubation
Meta-analysis
Polyps
Statistics
Tumors
Endocuff
adenoma detection rate
colorectal cancer
cap-assisted colonoscopy
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Background and Aims Add‐on devices have been widely used in clinical practice. The aim of this meta‐analysis was to compare the adenoma detection rate between Endocuff‐assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and cap‐assisted colonoscopy (CAC). Methods PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases were searched. Outcomes included adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time, and withdrawal time. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain the odds ratio or risk ratio. Continuous data were pooled using the mean difference. Results Of the 240 articles reviewed, six randomized controlled trials were included, with a total of 1994 patients. In the meta‐analysis, no statistical difference in adenoma detection rate was detected between EAC and CAC (47.0% vs 45.1%; P = 0.33). EAC significantly improved detection rate of diminutive adenomas/polyps compared with CAC (P = 0.01). Cecal intubation was achieved in 96.5% in EAC group and 97.9% in CAC group (P = 0.04). Besides, no statistical difference was found in cecal intubation time (P = 0.86), withdrawal time (P = 0.88), small adenomas/polyps (P = 0.60), or large adenomas/polyps (P = 0.95). Conclusion EAC and CAC have their respective merits. EAC significantly improve the detection of diminutive adenomas/polyps. CAC was better in cecal intubation rate.
Bibliography:We declare that we have no conflict of interests.
Ai Li and Jing‐Ze Yang were responsible for analyzing the data and drafting the manuscript. Xiao‐Xiao Yang, Ru‐Chen Zhou and Bing‐Cheng Feng were involved in data collection. Ming‐Ming Zhang, Jun‐Yan Qu, Peng Wang and Li‐Xiang Li interpreted the data. Xiu‐Li Zuo and Yan‐Qing Li provided critical revision of the manuscript. All of the authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Declaration of conflict of interest
This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81873550), Key Research and Development Program of Shandong Province (2018CXGC1209), and Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (ZR2016HB62) This study is also supported by the Taishan Scholars Program of Shandong Province (20181219).
Financial support
Author contributions
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ObjectType-Article-2
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:0815-9319
1440-1746
1440-1746
DOI:10.1111/jgh.15155