Virtual colonoscopy: stamp of approval or word of warning?
Digestive Disease Institute, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA 98101, USAThe Lancet (Impact Factor: 39.21). 02/2013; 381(9873). DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60056-2
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To assess the theoretical advantages of magnetic endoscope imaging (MEI) over standard colonoscopies (SCs) and to compare their efficacies. Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library and the Science Citation Index, were searched to retrieve relevant trials. In addition, abstracts from papers presented at professional meetings and the reference lists of retrieved articles were reviewed to identify additional studies. The meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.1. A random effect model with the Mantel-Haenszel method was used for pooling dichotomous and continuous data. A sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding the trials with a small number of patients and by excluding the trials performed by inexperienced providers. Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including 2967 patients, were included in the meta-analysis to compare cecal intubation rates and times, sedation dose, abdominal pain scores and the use of ancillary maneuvers between MEI and SC. The overall OR was 1.92 (95%CI: 1.13-3.27, eight RCTs), as indicated by the cecal intubation rate of MEI compared with SC, but MEI did not have any distinct advantage over SC for cecal intubation time (MD = -0.07, 95%CI: -0.16-0.02; three RCTs). MEI did not generally result in lower pain scores. Outcomes were also analyzed for the two subgroups based on the endoscopists' experience level to evaluate cecal intubation rates. MEI presented better outcomes for non-experienced colonoscopists than experienced colonoscopists. The real-time magnetic imaging system is of benefit in training and educating inexperienced endoscopists and improves the cecal intubation rate for experienced and inexperienced endoscopists.World Journal of Gastroenterology 11/2013; 19(41):7197-204. DOI:10.3748/wjg.v19.i41.7197 · 2.43 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.