Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32451757›Full record

SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2021

Adenoma and Advanced Adenoma Detection Rates of Water Exchange, Endocuff, and Cap Colonoscopy: A Network Meta-Analysis with Pooled Data of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Paul P Shao, Aileen Bui, Tahmineh Romero, Hui Jia, Felix W Leung

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06186778 (The Impact of Repeated Colonoscopic Insert Method on the Detection Rate of Adenomas in the Sigmoid Colon), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06186778 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

The Impact of Repeated Colonoscopic Insert Method on the Detection Rate of Adenomas in the Sigmoid Colon

TypeinterventionalSponsorJianning YaoRan2024 to 2024Enrolled650ConditionsColorectal PolypArmssecondary colonoscopy, conventional colonoscopy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Water Exchange Improves Detection of Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia: Pooled Analysis of Four Randomized Trials.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Insights Into Water Exchange Colonoscopy.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2022
    Article
  6. Measuring and Improving Quality of Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening.Techniques and innovations in gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Paul P ShaoDavid Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, 757 Westwood Plaza, Suite 7236, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-7417, USA. pshao@mednet.ucla.edu.
Aileen BuiDavid Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, 757 Westwood Plaza, Suite 7236, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-7417, USA.
Tahmineh RomeroDavid Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, 757 Westwood Plaza, Suite 7236, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-7417, USA.
Hui JiaVA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, 11301 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Felix W LeungDavid Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, 757 Westwood Plaza, Suite 7236, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-7417, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsA network meta-analysis showed that low-cost optimization of existing resources was as effective as distal add-on devices in increasing adenoma detection rate (ADR). We assessed the impacts of water exchange (WE), Endocuff, and cap colonoscopy on ADR and advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR). We hypothesized that WE may be superior at improving ADR and AADR.

methodsThe literature was searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported ADR as an outcome and included the keywords colonoscopy, and water exchange, Endocuff, or cap. We performed traditional network meta-analyses with random effect models comparing ADR and AADR of each method using air insufflation (AI) as the control and reported the odds ratios with 95% confidence interval. Performances were ranked based on P-score.

resultsTwenty-one RCTs met inclusion criteria. Fourteen RCTs also reported AADR. Both WE [1.46 (1.20-1.76)] and Endocuff [1.39 (1.17-1.66)] significantly increase ADR, while cap has no impact on ADR [1.00 (0.82-1.22)]. P-scores for WE (0.88), Endocuff (0.79), cap (0.17), and AI (0.17) suggest WE has the highest ADR. WE [1.38 (1.12-1.70)], but not Endocuff [0.96 (0.76-1.21)] or cap [1.06 (0.85-1.32)], significantly increases AADR. P-scores for WE (0.98), cap (0.50), AI (0.31), and Endocuff (0.21) suggest WE is more effective at increasing AADR. The results did not change after adjusting for age, proportion of males, and withdrawal time.

conclusionWE may be the modality of choice to maximally improve ADR and AADR.

Indexed as

AdenomaColonoscopyHumansProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicWaterWaterAdenoma detection rate (ADR)Advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR)Air insufflation (AI)Cap colonoscopyEndocuff (EC)Water exchange (WE)

Identifiers

PMID32451757

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.