ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
How to increase proximal adenoma detection rate: a meta-analysis comparing water exchange, water immersion and air/CO
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-world evidence of water exchange colonoscopy improving adenoma detection rates: A propensity score-matched analysis.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Efficacy of water infusion combined with defoamers in colonoscopy.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Adenoma detection rateTranslational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2023Article
- Does i-scan improve adenoma detection rate compared to high-definition colonoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
- Measuring and Improving Quality of Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening.Techniques and innovations in gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Article
- Impact of real-time use of artificial intelligence in improving adenoma detection during colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2021Review
- Efficacy of Endocuff Vision compared to first-generation Endocuff in adenoma detection rate and polyp detection rate in high-definition colonoscopy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2021Review
- Green Endoscopy: Can Filtered Water Use in Endoscopy Be a Safe, Economical Alternative Which Promotes Sustainable Healthcare?ANZ journal of surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent meta-analyses have demonstrated a higher adenoma detection rate using the water exchange method (WE), compared to water immersion (WI) and air/CO
methodsThe following databases were searched for our systematic review: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Sciences. We included both randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The primary outcome was proximal adenoma detection rate, and secondary outcomes were right adenoma detection rate and cecal intubation rate.
resultsA total of 12 studies (17 arms) with 5660 patients (2260 ACI, 2281 WE, and 1119 WI) were included. A higher proximal adenoma detection rate (risk ratio [RR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.53; P=0.001) and right adenoma detection rate (RR 1.43, 95%CI 1.19-1.71; P≤0.001;
conclusionsThe water exchange method for colonoscopy holds promise and should be encouraged in the clinical setting to increase proximal and right adenoma detection rates. This will in turn decrease the incidence of colorectal cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.