Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Adenoma detection rate by colonoscopy in real-world population-based studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Fernandes, Carlos; Estevinho, Manuela; Marques Cruz, Manuel; Frazzoni, Leonardo; Rodrigues, Pedro Pereira; Fuccio, Lorenzo; Dinis-Ribeiro, Mário.
Affiliation
  • Fernandes C; Programme in Health Data Science, University of Porto Faculty of Medicine, Porto, Portugal.
  • Estevinho M; Department of Gastroenterology, Vila Nova de Gaia Espinho Hospital Center, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal.
  • Marques Cruz M; Department of Biomedicine, Unit of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Porto Faculty of Medicine, Porto, Portugal.
  • Frazzoni L; MEDCIDS - Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences, University of Porto Faculty of Medicine, Porto, Portugal.
  • Rodrigues PP; CINTESIS@RISE, MEDCIDS, University of Porto Faculty of Medicine, Porto, Portugal.
  • Fuccio L; Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, Forli-Cesena Hospitals, AUSL Romagna, Italy.
  • Dinis-Ribeiro M; CINTESIS@RISE, MEDCIDS, University of Porto Faculty of Medicine, Porto, Portugal.
Endoscopy ; 2024 Sep 03.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39227020
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality indicator set at a minimum of 25% in unselected populations by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Nevertheless, a lack of pooled observational data resembling real-world practice limits support for this threshold. We aimed to perform a systematic review with meta-analysis to evaluate the pooled rates for conventional adenoma detection, polyp detection (PDR), cecal intubation, bowel preparation, and complications in population-based studies.

METHODS:

The PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched until May 2023 for populational-based studies reporting overall ADR in unselected individuals. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS:

31 studies were included, comprising 3 644 561 subjects. A high quality of procedures was noticeable, with a high cecal intubation rate and low complication rate. The overall pooled ADR, PDR, and rate of cancer detection were 26.5% (95%CI 23.3% to 29.7%), 38.3% (95%CI 32.5% to 44.1%), and 2.7% (95%CI 1.5% to 3.9%), respectively. ADR varied according to indication screening 33.3% (95%CI 24.5% to 42.2%), surveillance 42.9% (95%CI 36.9% to 49.0%), and diagnostic 24.7% (95%CI 19.5% to 29.9%), with subgroup analysis revealing rates of 34.4% (95%CI 22.0% to 40.5%) for post-fecal occult blood test and 26.6% (95%CI 22.6% to 30.5%) for primary colonoscopy screening. Diminutive conventional adenomas yielded a pooled rate of 59.9% (95%CI 43.4% to 76.3%). The pooled rate for overall serrated lesion detection was 12.4% (95%CI 8.8% to 16.0%). Male sex and higher age were significantly associated with an ADR above the benchmark.

CONCLUSION:

This first meta-analysis relying on real-world observational studies supports the ESGE benchmark for ADR, while suggesting that different benchmarks might be used according to indication, sex, and age.

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Endoscopy Year: 2024 Type: Article Affiliation country: Portugal

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Endoscopy Year: 2024 Type: Article Affiliation country: Portugal