1
|
Arora A, McDonald C, Iansavitchene A, Brahmania M, Sey M. A65 ENDOSCOPIST-TARGETED INTERVENTIONS TO OPTIMIZE ADENOMA DETECTION RATE - A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS. J Can Assoc Gastroenterol 2021. [DOI: 10.1093/jcag/gwab002.063] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Adenoma detection rate (ADR) has emerged as the strongest quality assurance metric that has consistently been shown to be inversely associated with the development of colorectal cancer after colonoscopy. Unfortunately, marked variability in ADR exists among endoscopists. A multitude of interventions targeted at endoscopists to optimize their ADR have been reported, including but not limited to withdrawal time, in room observers, physician report cards, and quality improvement and training programs. However, it is unclear which of them are truly effective.
Aims
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to evaluate the effectiveness of endoscopist-targeted interventions to improve adenoma detection rate (ADR) or polyp detection rate (PDR).
Methods
Systematic searches of major databases were conducted through to March 2018 to identify potentially relevant studies. Both randomized controlled trials and observational studies were included. Data for ADR and PDR were analyzed on the log-odds scale using a random-effects meta-analysis model using restricted maximum likelihood (with Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect meta-analysis used for fewer than 4 studies). Statistical effect-size heterogeneity was assessed using a Chi2 test and quantifying the relative proportion of variation using the I2 statistic. Publication bias was assessed by the Harbord regression test.
Results
From 4299 initial studies, 24 were included in the systematic review and 13 were included in the meta-analysis representing a total of 55,090 colonoscopies. Physician report card interventions (7 studies) and withdrawal time focused interventions (6 studies) were meta-analyzed. The pooled odds ratio for ADR for report card interventions was 1.31 (95% CI: 1.15, 1.50; p<0.0001), favoring report cards to detect more adenomas. Statistical heterogeneity was detected with substantial relative effect-size variability (Chi2, p<0.0001; I2=80.1%). No statistical evidence of publication bias was found. 6 studies reported data for PDR using withdrawal time focused interventions, with 3 of these reporting data on ADR. The pooled odds ratio for ADR was 1.02 (95% CI: 0.86, 1.22; p=0.81) and for PDR was 1.07 (95% CI: 0.88, 1.31; p=0.51) which were not statistically significant. Statistical heterogeneity was detected in both groups (Chi2, p<0.001; I2=82.2% for ADR and I2=89.4% for PDR) and there was statistical evidence of publication bias. Figures 1 and 2 represent Forest plots for the effect of pre-and post-report card and withdrawal time focused interventions on ADR.
Conclusions
Our study provides evidence that the distribution of colonoscopy quality report cards to physicians significantly improves overall ADR and should strongly be considered as part of quality improvement programs aimed at optimizing colonoscopy performance.
Funding Agencies
None
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Arora
- Gastroenterology, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | - C McDonald
- Gastroenterology, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | | | - M Brahmania
- Gastroenterology, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | - M Sey
- Western University, London, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Almaghrabi MM, Gandhi M, Guizzetti L, Iansavitchene A, Oakland K, Jairath V, Sey M. A115 A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF LOWER GASTROINTESTINAL BLEEDING RISK SCORES TO PREDICT ADVERSE OUTCOMES. J Can Assoc Gastroenterol 2021. [DOI: 10.1093/jcag/gwab002.113] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is a common reason for emergency hospitalization. In most patients, bleeding resolves spontaneously but some cases can be fatal. Risk prediction scores can be useful in risk stratifying patients with LGIB at the time of presentation although the most discriminative LGIB risk score is unknown.
Aims
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing LGIB risk prediction scores.
Methods
Following the PRISMA statement, a systematic search for relevant publications after 1990 was conducted in Ovid Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and CENTRAL electronic databases. We also searched published conference abstracts over the past 5 years. Studies with a primary aim of deriving or validating a LGIB risk score were included. Title and abstracts were reviewed by two independent reviewers followed by full text review and data extraction by both reviewers. Diagnostic classification data for combinations of risk score and clinical outcome were meta-analyzed using a hierarchical summary receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) model, allowing for random-effects by study, and fixed-effect of the risk score thresholds to influence both sensitivity and specificity. Area under the summary ROC were estimated from model parameters for the pre-specified LGIB risk score thresholds-of-interest.
Results
Our search identified 2,331 citations for review, of which 100 remained after the title and abstract screen, and 18 ultimately met criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis after full text review. From these, we identified 21 risk prediction scores for LGIB, although only four had sufficient number of papers to meta-analyze (Oakland, Strate, NOBLADS, and BLEED score). For the outcome safe discharge from hospital, the Oakland score had an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of 85.5% (95% CI: 82.1%, 88.3%). For the outcome major bleeding, the Oakland score had an AUROC of 78.9% (95% CI: 75.1%, 82.2%); the Strate score had an AUROC of 74.4% (95% CI: 70.4%, 78.0%); the NOBLADS score had an AUROC of 60.3% (95% CI: 55.9%, 64.5%); and the BLEED score had an AUROC of 65.6% (95% CI: 61.4%, 69.7%). For the outcome, need for hemostasis, the Oakland had an AUROC of 99.0% (95% CI: 97.7%, 99.6%); the Strate score had an AUROC of 82.1% (95% CI: 78.5%, 85.2%); the NOBLADS score had an AUROC of 23.9% (95% CI: 20.3%, 27.8%). For the outcome, need for transfusion, the Oakland score had an AUROC of 99.0% (95% CI: 97.7%, 99.6%); the NOBLADS score had an AUROC of 87.7% (95% CI: 84.5%, 90.3%).
Conclusions
The Oakland score was the most discriminative risk prediction model for safe discharge from hospital, major bleeding, need for hemostasis, and need for transfusion.
Funding Agencies
None
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - M Gandhi
- Grand River Hospital, Kitchener, ON, Canada
| | | | | | - K Oakland
- HCA International Ltd, London, London, United Kingdom
| | - V Jairath
- Medicine, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | - M Sey
- Western University, London, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|