Blog
About

0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Diagnostic accuracy of i-scan image enhancement for real-time endoscopic diagnosis of small colorectal polyps: a meta-analysis

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective:

          i-Scan is a digital image enhancement technology, reported to improve diagnostic performance during endoscopy. Previous studies have investigated the accuracy of i-scan for distinguishing between neoplastic and non-neoplastic colonic polyps and suggested diagnostic accuracy close to that required for use in routine clinical practice. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of the available literature investigating diagnostic accuracy for i-scan optical diagnosis when made in real time for colorectal polyps <10 mm in size.

          Data sources:

          The databases of Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies.

          Methods:

          A bivariate random effects model was used to produce pooled sensitivity and specificity values, and univariable meta-regression was applied for subgroup analysis.

          Results:

          The meta-analysis included 15 studies, and diagnosis of 2817 polyps. The area under the hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.96. The pooled sensitivity of i-scan optical diagnosis was 0.92 (95% confidence interval 0.85–0.95). The specificity was 0.90 (95% confidence interval 0.83–0.94).

          Conclusions:

          This meta-analysis updates and summarizes the available evidence concerning the diagnostic performance of i-scan for small colorectal polyps. An acceptable degree of accuracy was found, showing potential to support a ‘resect and discard’ strategy for colonic polyps. There was not found to be a significant difference in diagnostic performance between different clinical settings (i.e. teaching hospitals or general hospitals).

          Related collections

          Most cited references 37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

          David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies.

            In 2003, the QUADAS tool for systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies was developed. Experience, anecdotal reports, and feedback suggested areas for improvement; therefore, QUADAS-2 was developed. This tool comprises 4 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain is assessed in terms of risk of bias, and the first 3 domains are also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. Signalling questions are included to help judge risk of bias. The QUADAS-2 tool is applied in 4 phases: summarize the review question, tailor the tool and produce review-specific guidance, construct a flow diagram for the primary study, and judge bias and applicability. This tool will allow for more transparent rating of bias and applicability of primary diagnostic accuracy studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed.

              Publication bias and other sample size effects are issues for meta-analyses of test accuracy, as for randomized trials. We investigate limitations of standard funnel plots and tests when applied to meta-analyses of test accuracy and look for improved methods. Type I and type II error rates for existing and alternative tests of sample size effects were estimated and compared in simulated meta-analyses of test accuracy. Type I error rates for the Begg, Egger, and Macaskill tests are inflated for typical diagnostic odds ratios (DOR), when disease prevalence differs from 50% and when thresholds favor sensitivity over specificity or vice versa. Regression and correlation tests based on functions of effective sample size are valid, if occasionally conservative, tests for sample size effects. Empirical evidence suggests that they have adequate power to be useful tests. When DORs are heterogeneous, however, all tests of funnel plot asymmetry have low power. Existing tests that use standard errors of odds ratios are likely to be seriously misleading if applied to meta-analyses of test accuracy. The effective sample size funnel plot and associated regression test of asymmetry should be used to detect publication bias and other sample size related effects.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Therap Adv Gastroenterol
                Therap Adv Gastroenterol
                TAG
                sptag
                Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                1756-283X
                1756-2848
                06 December 2018
                2018
                : 11
                Affiliations
                Imperial College London Department of Surgery and Cancer, St Mary’s Hospital, Praed Street, London, SW7 2AZ, UK
                Imperial College London Department of Surgery and Cancer, London, UK
                Imperial College London Department of Surgery and Cancer, London, UK
                Imperial College London Department of Surgery and Cancer, London, UK
                Author notes
                10.1177_1756284818814948
                10.1177/1756284818814948
                6295743
                © The Author(s), 2018

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                Categories
                Meta-Analysis
                Custom metadata
                January-December 2018

                Comments

                Comment on this article