Different position from traditional left lateral for colonoscopy? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized control trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Colonoscopy requires the intubation of the cecum for screening of colorectal diseases. The conventional position used for colonoscopy is the left lateral position (LLP). However, alternative positions have also been utilized to enhance the success of intubation. Thus, the aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of the different positions to determine the effectiveness of the individual positions for successful colonoscopy.Methods
Medline, Embase and Cochrane trials electronic databases were searched for studies on colonoscopy positions. The primary outcome was defined as the cecal intubation rate. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the rates of cecal intubation were estimated. Secondary outcomes such as the cecal intubation time and adenoma detection rate were further analyzed qualitatively.Results
After reviewing 644 identified records, 7 randomized control trials (RCT) studies were included. No significant difference was observed in either comparisons, between the LLP vs. supine position (SP) (RR = 1.01, 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.04, P = 0.55) or the LLP vs. prone position (PP) (RR = 1.02, 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.06, P = 0.27).Conclusions
Amidst available literature, the use of other positions can be considered when performing colonoscopy. These further highlights that the existential practice is based predominantly on familiarity instead of evidence-based-research.
SUBMITTER: Lin SY
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8110879 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundModifying patient position during colonoscopy has been proposed as a simple and inexpensive technique to increase luminal distention and improve navigation through the large bowel. The left lateral (LL) decubitus starting position is commonly used during colonoscopy. However, reports indicate that other starting positions may offer additional benefit. We aimed to determine if the right lateral (RL) starting position compared to the standard LL starting position could improve outcomes in colonoscopy.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE through June 2020 to identify studies comparing RL and LL starting positions during colonoscopy. The primary outcomes included mean cecal insertion time and cecal intubation rate, and adverse events were assessed by pooling data using a random-effects model expressed in terms of odds ratio (OR), mean difference, and 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsWe identified 5 randomized controlled trials, including 809 participants, that compared LL vs. RL colonoscopy. The pooled OR for cecal intubation rate was 1.3 (95%CI 0.8-2.3; P=0.3). The mean difference in mean cecal insertion time was 0.08 (95%CI -0.09 to 0.26; P=0.4). Heterogeneity between studies was low (I 2=0%). No complications were reported in either arm of the study. Pain scores assessed using a visual analog scale were comparable among both arms of the study.ConclusionThe RL starting position for colonoscopy was comparable to the LL and offered no additional benefit in terms of cecal intubation time, intubation rate, or patient discomfort.
| S-EPMC8375655 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveA colonoscopy study in sedated patients with air insufflation showed that right-lateral starting position (RLP) improved abdominal discomfort and reduced cecal intubation time. The aim of this study was to determine if RLP vs left-lateral starting position (LLP) may produce similar results in unsedated patients examined with a modified-water immersion (m-WI) method.MethodsConsecutive patients for diagnostic colonoscopy meeting the inclusion criteria were randomized. Patients and colonoscopist were unblinded. The m-WI method entailed suction during insertion not only for fecal debris evacuation but also to facilitate passage through difficult or angulated colonic flexures. Water was infused as needed when any difficulty was encountered during insertion. A bowel visualization scale (BVS) (0=totally blurred visualization; 1=blurred lumen visualization; 2=small fecal debris with clear mucosa visualization; 3= clear visualization) was used to evaluate the interference of fecal debris with cecal intubation rate and time.ResultsA total of 142 patients (72 in RLP and 70 in LLP) were enrolled. The respective pain score, visual analog scale, (VAS) and cecal intubation rate were not significantly different. The cecal intubation time was nearly significantly different (13.4±4.5 min vs 11.7±5.4 min; p=0.054) and was significantly different in the constipation subgroup (16.0±3.5 min vs 8.6±3.8 min; p=0.001). The cecal intubation time based on BVS showed significant difference between RLP and LLP in Scale 2 (13.9±4.6 min vs 10.3±4.2 min; p=0.003) and Scale 2 and 3 combined (13.2±4.3 min vs 10.6±4.8 min; p=0.01), respectively.ConclusionRLP did not improve the pain score, and LLP showed better performance in unsedated m-WI colonoscopy patients (ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT03489824).
| S-EPMC7522421 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is traditionally performed with patients in the prone position (PP). However, this poses a potentially increased risk of anesthetic complications. An alternative is the left lateral (LL) decubitus position, which is commonly used for endoscopic procedures. Our aim was to compare cannulation rate, time, and outcomes in ERCP performed in LL versus PP. Patients and methods We conducted a non-inferiority, prospective, randomized control trial with 1:1 randomization to either LL or PP position. Patients > 18 years of age with native papillae requiring a therapeutic ERCP were recruited between March 2017 and November 2018 in a single tertiary center. Results A total of 253 patients were randomized; 132 to LL (52.2 %) and 121 to PP (47.8 %). Cannulation rates were 97.0 % in LL vs 99.2 % in PP (difference -2.2 % (one-sided 95 % CI: -5 % to 0.6 %). Median time to biliary cannulation was 03:50 minutes in LL vs 02:57 minutes in PP ( P = 0.62). Pancreatitis rates were 2.3 % in LL vs 5.8 % in PP ( P = 0.20). There were significantly lower radiation doses used in PP (0.23 mGy/m 2 in LL vs 0.16 mGy/m 2 in PP, P = 0.008) without a difference in fluoroscopy times. Conclusions Our analysis comparing LL to PP during ERCP shows comparable procedural and anesthetic outcomes, with significantly lower radiation exposure when performed in PP. We conclude that ERCP undertaken in the LL position is not inferior to PP, except for higher radiation exposure, and should be considered as a safe alternate position for patients undergoing ERCP.
| S-EPMC9010096 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe optimal electrodes position for elective direct current (DC) cardioversion of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) remains uncertain.MethodsAn electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases was performed through March 2022 for randomized trials that examined the outcomes of anterior-posterior (AP) versus anterior-lateral (AL) electrodes position during cardioversion of (AF). The main outcome was the success rate of cardioversion. Data were pooled using random effects model.ResultsThe final analysis included 10 RCTs with a total of 1677 patients. There was no difference in the rate of successful cardioversion between the AP versus AL groups (86.6 vs 87.9 %; RR 1.00; 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.06). Subgroup analysis by the shock waveform showed no significant interaction between monophasic and biphasic waveforms (Pintercation = 0.23). meta-regression analyses showed no effect modification of primary outcome according to body mass index (p = 0.15), left atrial diameter (p = 0.64), valvular heart disease (p = 0.34), lone AF (p = 0.58), or the duration of AF (p = 0.70). There was no significant difference between the AP and AL electrode position groups in successful cardioversion at low energy (RR 0.94; 95 % CI 0.74 to 1.19), the number of the delivered shocks (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.03; 95 % CI -0.32 to 0.26) or the mean energy of the delivered shocks (SMD -0.11 and 95 % CI -0.30 to 0.07). There was lower transthoracic impedance with AP versus AL electrode position (SMD -0.28; 95 %CI -0.47 to -0.10).ConclusionMeta-analysis of randomized data showed no difference between AP and AL electrode positions in the success rate of DC cardioversion of AF. Either AP or AL electrode positions should be acceptable approaches for elective DC cardioversion of patients with AF.
| S-EPMC9593304 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Traditional Chinese medication (TCM) has analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). We conducted the first systematic review of the best quantitative and qualitative evidence currently available in order to evaluate the effectiveness of TCM in relieving pain in knee OA. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using three English and four Chinese biomedical databases from their inception through March 1, 2015. We included randomized controlled trials of TCM for knee OA with intervention durations of at least two weeks. The effects of TCM on pain and other clinical symptoms were measured with the visual analog scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). The total effectiveness rate, which was used to assess overall pain, physical performance and wellness, was also measured. Two researchers independently extracted data on study design, population characteristics, duration, intervention, outcomes, risk of bias, and primary results. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis when appropriate. We also explored factors that could explain the heterogeneity by conducting subgroup and meta-regression analyses. Twenty-three studies, totaling 2362 subjects, met the eligibility criteria. Treatments were formulated with an average of 8 Chinese herbs and were prescribed based on the traditional Chinese diagnostic method of syndrome differentiation. The mean treatment duration was seven weeks, with oral administration occurring one to three times a day. Compared with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and intra-articular hyaluronate injections, 18 of the studies showed significantly improved VAS pain scores (Mean Difference [MD] [Formula: see text] 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.94; [Formula: see text]), six of the studies showed significantly improved WOMAC pain subscale scores (MD [Formula: see text] 2.23; 95% CI, 0.56 to 3.91; [Formula: see text]), and 16 of the trials showed significantly improved total effectiveness rates (risk ratio [Formula: see text] 1.12; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.19; [Formula: see text] 0.0003). In addition, TCM showed a lower risk of adverse events than standard western treatments. This evidence suggests that TCM is safe and effective for improving pain, function, and wellness in treatments of knee OA. However, there is inherent clinical heterogeneity (diverse TCM formulations, controls, and treatment regimens) among the included trials. Despite these limitations, the potential analgesic effects of TCM warrant further methodologically rigorous research to determine the clinical implications of TCM on pain management in knee OA.
| S-EPMC5553612 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundRecent prospective randomized controlled trials have evaluated deep convolutional neural network (CNN) based computer aided detection (CADe) of lesions in real-time colonoscopy. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the adenoma detection rate (ADR) of deep CNN based CADe assisted colonoscopy to standard colonoscopy (SC) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsMultiple databases were searched (from inception to May 2020) and parallel RCTs that compared deep CNN based CADe assisted colonoscopy to SC were included for this analysis. Using Mantel-Haenzel (M-H) random effects model, pooled risk ratios (RR) and mean difference (MD) were calculated. In between study heterogeneity was assessed by I2% values. Outcomes assessed included other per patient adenoma parameters.FindingsSix RCTs were included in our final analysis that utilized deep CNN based CADe system in real-time colonoscopy. Total numbers of patients assessed were 4962 (2480 in CADe and 2482 in SC group). CADe based colonoscopy demonstrated statistically higher pooled ADR, RR=1.5 (95% CI 1.3-1.72), p<0.0001, I2=56%; and pooled PDR, RR=1.42 (95% CI 1.33-1.51), p<0.00001, I2=9%; when compared to SC. Per patient adenoma detection parameters were significantly better with CADe colonoscopy when compared to SC, with increased scope withdrawal time (mean difference = 0.38, 95% CI 0.05-0.72, p = 0.02).InterpretationBased on our meta-analysis, deep CNN based CADe colonoscopy achieved significantly higher ADR metrics, albeit with increased scope withdrawal time when compared to SC.
| S-EPMC7691740 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMobile health (mHealth) technologies are innovative solutions for delivering instructions to patients preparing for colonoscopy.ObjectiveTo systematically review the literature evaluating the effectiveness of mHealth technologies supporting colonoscopy preparation on patient and clinical outcomes.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of mHealth technologies for colonoscopy preparation on patient and clinical outcomes. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and appraised methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool. Data were pooled using random effects models and when heterogeneity, assessed using I2, was statistically significant, a qualitative synthesis of the data was performed. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot.ResultsTen RCTs (3,383 participants) met inclusion criteria. MHealth interventions included smartphone apps, SMS text messages, videos, camera apps, and a social media app. Outcomes were bowel cleanliness quality, user satisfaction, colonoscopy quality indicators (cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate), adherence to diet, and cancellation/no-show rates. MHealth interventions were associated with better bowel cleanliness scores on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.57, 95%CI 0.37-0.77, I2 = 60%, p = 0.08] and the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale [SMD -0.39, 95%CI -0.59-0.19, I2 = 45%, p = 0.16], but they were not associated with rates of willingness to repeat the colonoscopy using the same regimen [odds ratio (OR) 1.88, 95%CI 0.85-4.15, I2 = 48%, p = 0.12] or cancellations/no-shows [OR 0.96, 95%CI 0.68-1.35, I2 = 0%]. Most studies showed that adequate bowel preparation, user satisfaction and adherence to diet were better in the intervention groups compared to the control groups, while inconsistent findings were observed for the colonoscopy quality indicators. All trials were at high risk of bias for lack of participant blinding. Visual inspection of a funnel plot revealed publication bias.ConclusionsMHealth technologies show promise as a way to improve bowel cleanliness, but trials to date were of low methodological quality. High-quality research is required to understand the effectiveness of mHealth technologies on colonoscopy outcomes.
| S-EPMC7971694 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Great value in the early identification and treatment of adenomatous polyps or early canceration using colonoscopy has been recognized. A clear colonoscopic vision brought by good intestinal preparation will become crucial. Several studies have completed using the low-residue diet (LRD) versus a clear liquid diet (CLD) the day before colonoscopy that presenting contradictory results. Therefore, a more comprehensive and updated meta-analysis is needed to summarize the findings on the effects of LRD and CLD on intestinal preparation and the quality of coloscopy.The comprehensive search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane databases (February 2020). LRD vs CLD before colonoscopy were included in this study. Mantel-Haenszel or DerSimonian and Laird models with the relative risk (RR) to evaluate differences in intestinal preparation, tolerance, readiness to repeat preparation, detected of a polyp, and overall adverse reactions.Total 16 studies (N = 3413) were eligible. Patients with LRD compared with CLD indicated significantly better of tolerability (RR 0.92;95% CI,0.85-0.99; P < .05) and willingness to repeat intestinal preparation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.79-0.93; P < .05), but no differences with adequate intestinal preparations, detected polyp or overall adverse reactions (all P > .05).Patients with LRD the day before colonoscopy show better tolerance and willingness to repeat intestinal preparation, and no difference with adequate intestinal preparations compared with CLD, but the recommended level of evidence is weak. However, in terms of the detection rate of intestinal adenomas, the LRD group is not weaker than the CLD group, for its evidence level is high, and can significantly reduce the hunger experience of patients.
| S-EPMC7717789 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of telephone instructions on the quality of bowel preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy.MethodsOnline English databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase) were screened for randomized controlled trials on telephone instructions regarding bowel preparation for colonoscopy from inception to April 15, 2022. After data extraction, the Review Manager software was used for meta-analysis.ResultsNine randomized controlled trials with 3,836 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The rate of adequate bowel preparation was significantly higher in the telephone group than in the control group. The pooled relative risk (RR) was 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.30, P < 0.01). The pooled mean difference (MD) for the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score was 1.32 (95% CI: 0.15-2.49, P < 0.05), and that for the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale score was -1.93 (95% CI: -2.35 to -1.51, P < 0.01). The polyp detection rate was significantly higher in the telephone group than in the control group (RR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.23-2.04, P < 0.01), whereas no significant difference was noted in the adenoma detection rate between the groups (RR = 1.37, 95% CI: 0.97-1.94, P = 0.08).ConclusionTelephone instructions for patients undergoing colonoscopy significantly improved the quality of bowel preparation and increased polyp detection rate.
| S-EPMC10664946 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This meta-analysis aimed to provide critically estimated evidence for the advantages and disadvantages of Chinese herbal medicines used for premature ovarian failure (POF), which could provide suggestions for rational treatments.The databases searched included MEDLINE, EMBASE, CNKI, VIP, China Dissertation Database, China Important Conference Papers Database, and online clinical trial registry websites. Published and unpublished randomized controlled trials of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) combined with hormone therapy (HT) and HT alone for POF were assessed up to December 30, 2015. Two authors extracted data and assessed trial quality independently using Cochrane systematic review methods. Meta-analysis was used to quantitatively describe serum hormone levels and Kupperman scores associated with perimenopause symptoms.Seventeen randomized controlled trials involving 1352 participants were selected. Compared with HT alone, although no significant effects were observed in the levels of luteinizing hormone, therapy with TCM combined with HT compared to HT alone effectively altered serum hormone levels of follicle stimulating hormone (P<0.01) and estradiol (P < 0.01), and improved Kupperman index scores (P< 0.01).The reported favorable effects of TCM combined with HT for treating POF patients are better than HT alone.However, the beneficial effects derived from this combination therapy cannot be viewed conclusive. In order to better support the clinical use, more rigorously designed trials are required to provide.
| S-EPMC5416635 | biostudies-other