Meta-analysis of Virtual-based Chromoendoscopy Compared With Dye-spraying Chromoendoscopy Standard and High-definition White Light Endoscopy in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease at Increased Risk of Colon Cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (9) ◽  
pp. 1319-1329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammed El-Dallal ◽  
Ye Chen ◽  
Qianyun Lin ◽  
Shana Rakowsky ◽  
Lindsey Sattler ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have an increased risk of colorectal cancer. We sought to assess the comparative efficacy of virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE) vs high definition white light endoscopy (HDWLE) or dye-spraying chromoendoscopy (DCE) through a meta-analysis and rating the quality of evidence. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed through February 15, 2019. Primary outcomes were number of patients in whom dysplasia was identified and number of dysplastic lesions identified in these patients. We included only randomized control trials (RCTs) and performed meta-analysis using RevMan5.3. Results Of the 3205 studies identified, 11 RCTs were included, with a total of 1328 patients. Per patient analysis, VCE was not statistically different compared with DCE (risk ratio [RR] 0.77; 95% CI, 0.55–1.08) or HDWLE (RR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.45–1.15). However, per dysplasia analysis, VCE was not statistically different compared with DCE (RR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.47–1.11) and inferior compared with HDWLE (RR 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44–0.88). The quality of evidence was moderate in the HDWLE and low to moderate in the DCE studies. Conclusion Based on this meta-analysis, VCE was as good as HDWLE and DCE in identifying dysplasia per patient analysis. However, per dysplasia analysis, VCE was inferior compared with HDWLE and no different from DCE. Further studies need to examine the efficacy of each individual VCE technique.

2018 ◽  
Vol 154 (6) ◽  
pp. S-371
Author(s):  
Ramprasad Jegadeesan ◽  
Madhav Desai ◽  
Tharani Sundararajan ◽  
Venkata Subhash Gorrepati ◽  
Viveksandeep Thogulva Chandrasekar ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S65-S65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramprasad Jegadeesan ◽  
Madhav Desai ◽  
Tharani Sundararajan ◽  
Jihan Fathallah ◽  
Venkata Subhash Gorrepati ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 154 (1) ◽  
pp. S93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramprasad Jegadeesan ◽  
Madhav Desai ◽  
Tharani Sundararajan ◽  
Jihan Fathallah ◽  
Venkata Subhash Gorrepati ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (8) ◽  
pp. 1057-1065 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raj Shah ◽  
Gila R Hoffman ◽  
Mohammed El-Dallal ◽  
Alexander M Goldowsky ◽  
Ye Chen ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction Using therapeutic drug monitoring [TDM] in adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to answer four clinical PICO [Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome] questions. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central from inception to June 30, 2019. Remission was defined by the manuscripts’ definitions of clinical remission. Data were analysed using RevMan 5.3. Quality of evidence was assessed with GRADE methodology. Results We identified and screened 3365 abstracts and 11 articles. PICO 1 Reactive vs No TDM: six studies pooled showed 57.1% [257/450] failed to achieve remission following reactive TDM vs 44.7% [268/600] in the no TDM group (risk ratio [RR]: 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88–1.47). PICO 2 Proactive vs no TDM: five studies pooled showed 19.5% [75/384] failed to maintain remission in the proactive TDM group vs 33.4% [248/742] in the no TDM group [RR: 0.60; 95% CI 0.35–1.04]. PICO 3 Proactive vs Reactive TDM: two retrospective studies pooled showed 14.2% [26/183] failure to maintain remission in the proactive TDM group and 64.7% [119/184] in the reactive TDM group [RR: 0.22; 95% CI 0.15–0.32]. PICO 4 TDM [proactive/reactive] vs No TDM: we pooled 10 studies showing 39.7% [332/837] failed to achieve remission in the TDM [proactive/reactive] cohort vs 40.3% [428/1063] in the no TDM cohort [RR: 0.94; 95% CI 0.77–1.14]. Overall, the quality of evidence in each PICO was very low when using GRADE. Conclusions This meta-analysis shows that data supporting use of TDM in adults are limited and of very low quality. Further well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the place of TDM in clinical practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document