Variability in adenoma detection rate in control groups of randomized colonoscopy trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.


Journal

Gastrointestinal endoscopy
ISSN: 1097-6779
Titre abrégé: Gastrointest Endosc
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0010505

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Feb 2023
Historique:
received: 03 08 2022
revised: 26 09 2022
accepted: 04 10 2022
pubmed: 16 10 2022
medline: 25 1 2023
entrez: 15 10 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is still the main surrogate outcome parameter of screening colonoscopy, but most studies include mixed indications, and basic ADR is quite variable. We therefore looked at the control groups in randomized ADR trials using advanced imaging or mechanical methods to find out whether indications or other factors influence ADR levels. Patients in the control groups of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ADR increase using various methods were collected based on a systematic review; this control group had to use high-definition white-light endoscopy performed between 2008 and 2021. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool ADR in control groups and its 95% confidence interval (CI) according to clinical (indication and demographic), study setting (tandem/parallel, number of centers, sample size), and technical (type of intervention, withdrawal time) parameters. Interstudy heterogeneity was reported with the I From 80 studies, 25,304 patients in the respective control groups were included. ADR in control arms varied between 8.2% and 68.1% with a high degree of heterogeneity (I A high level of variability was found in the level of ADR in the control groups of RCTs. With regards to indications, only fecal immunochemical test-based colonoscopy studies influenced basic ADR, and primary colonoscopy screening appeared to be similar to other indications. Standardization for variables related to clinical, methodologic, and technical parameters is required to achieve generalizability and reproducibility.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND AIMS OBJECTIVE
Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is still the main surrogate outcome parameter of screening colonoscopy, but most studies include mixed indications, and basic ADR is quite variable. We therefore looked at the control groups in randomized ADR trials using advanced imaging or mechanical methods to find out whether indications or other factors influence ADR levels.
METHODS METHODS
Patients in the control groups of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ADR increase using various methods were collected based on a systematic review; this control group had to use high-definition white-light endoscopy performed between 2008 and 2021. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool ADR in control groups and its 95% confidence interval (CI) according to clinical (indication and demographic), study setting (tandem/parallel, number of centers, sample size), and technical (type of intervention, withdrawal time) parameters. Interstudy heterogeneity was reported with the I
RESULTS RESULTS
From 80 studies, 25,304 patients in the respective control groups were included. ADR in control arms varied between 8.2% and 68.1% with a high degree of heterogeneity (I
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
A high level of variability was found in the level of ADR in the control groups of RCTs. With regards to indications, only fecal immunochemical test-based colonoscopy studies influenced basic ADR, and primary colonoscopy screening appeared to be similar to other indications. Standardization for variables related to clinical, methodologic, and technical parameters is required to achieve generalizability and reproducibility.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36243103
pii: S0016-5107(22)02041-7
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.10.009
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Meta-Analysis Systematic Review Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

212-225.e7

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Cesare Hassan (C)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Pieve Emanuele, Humanitas University, Rozzano, Italy; Endoscopy Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, Rozzano, Italy.

Daniele Piovani (D)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Pieve Emanuele, Humanitas University, Rozzano, Italy; Endoscopy Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, Rozzano, Italy.

Marco Spadaccini (M)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Pieve Emanuele, Humanitas University, Rozzano, Italy; Endoscopy Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, Rozzano, Italy.

Tommaso Parigi (T)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Pieve Emanuele, Humanitas University, Rozzano, Italy; Endoscopy Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, Rozzano, Italy.

Kareem Khalaf (K)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Pieve Emanuele, Humanitas University, Rozzano, Italy.

Antonio Facciorusso (A)

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

Alessandro Fugazza (A)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Pieve Emanuele, Humanitas University, Rozzano, Italy.

Thomas Rösch (T)

Department of Interdisciplinary Endoscopy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Michael Bretthauer (M)

Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Yuichi Mori (Y)

Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Digestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama, Japan.

Prateek Sharma (P)

Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri, USA.

Douglas K Rex (DK)

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.

Stefanos Bonovas (S)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Pieve Emanuele, Humanitas University, Rozzano, Italy; Endoscopy Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, Rozzano, Italy.

Alessandro Repici (A)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Pieve Emanuele, Humanitas University, Rozzano, Italy; Endoscopy Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, Rozzano, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH