Nurse Participation in Colonoscopy Observation versus the Colonoscopist Alone for Polyp and Adenoma Detection: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials
The role of nurse participation (NP) in colonoscopy observation for polyp and adenoma detection is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate whether nurse participation can improve polyp and adenoma detection. Patients and Methods. The PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for ra...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2016-01-01
|
| Series: | Gastroenterology Research and Practice |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/7631981 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832557083086553088 |
|---|---|
| author | Lei Xu Yu Zhang Haojun Song Weihong Wang Sijie Zhang Xiaoyun Ding |
| author_facet | Lei Xu Yu Zhang Haojun Song Weihong Wang Sijie Zhang Xiaoyun Ding |
| author_sort | Lei Xu |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The role of nurse participation (NP) in colonoscopy observation for polyp and adenoma detection is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate whether nurse participation can improve polyp and adenoma detection. Patients and Methods. The PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English. The outcome measurements included (1) the polyp and adenoma detection rate (PDR and ADR); (2) the advanced lesions detection rate; and (3) the mean polyp and adenoma detection rate per colonoscopy. Results. Three RCTs with a total of 1676 patients were included. The pooled data showed a significantly higher ADR in the NP group than colonoscopist alone (CA) (45.7% versus 39.3%; RR 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04–1.30). And it showed no significant difference in the PDR and advanced lesions detection rate between the two groups (RR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.95–1.37; RR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.91–2.00; resp.). Conclusions. Nurse participation during a colonoscopy can improve the ADR, whereas no benefit for the PDR and advanced lesions detection rate was observed. All RCTs included in the meta-analysis had high risk of bias. Thus, there is a need for new research that uses sound methodology to definitively address the research question under study. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-2ef5c6302ef44dce82ff7096970a4c2a |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1687-6121 1687-630X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2016-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Gastroenterology Research and Practice |
| spelling | doaj-art-2ef5c6302ef44dce82ff7096970a4c2a2025-02-03T05:43:32ZengWileyGastroenterology Research and Practice1687-61211687-630X2016-01-01201610.1155/2016/76319817631981Nurse Participation in Colonoscopy Observation versus the Colonoscopist Alone for Polyp and Adenoma Detection: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled TrialsLei Xu0Yu Zhang1Haojun Song2Weihong Wang3Sijie Zhang4Xiaoyun Ding5Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo No. 1 Hospital, Ningbo 315010, ChinaCollege of Medicine, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, ChinaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Ningbo No. 1 Hospital, Ningbo 315010, ChinaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Ningbo No. 1 Hospital, Ningbo 315010, ChinaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Ningbo No. 1 Hospital, Ningbo 315010, ChinaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Ningbo No. 1 Hospital, Ningbo 315010, ChinaThe role of nurse participation (NP) in colonoscopy observation for polyp and adenoma detection is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate whether nurse participation can improve polyp and adenoma detection. Patients and Methods. The PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English. The outcome measurements included (1) the polyp and adenoma detection rate (PDR and ADR); (2) the advanced lesions detection rate; and (3) the mean polyp and adenoma detection rate per colonoscopy. Results. Three RCTs with a total of 1676 patients were included. The pooled data showed a significantly higher ADR in the NP group than colonoscopist alone (CA) (45.7% versus 39.3%; RR 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04–1.30). And it showed no significant difference in the PDR and advanced lesions detection rate between the two groups (RR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.95–1.37; RR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.91–2.00; resp.). Conclusions. Nurse participation during a colonoscopy can improve the ADR, whereas no benefit for the PDR and advanced lesions detection rate was observed. All RCTs included in the meta-analysis had high risk of bias. Thus, there is a need for new research that uses sound methodology to definitively address the research question under study.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/7631981 |
| spellingShingle | Lei Xu Yu Zhang Haojun Song Weihong Wang Sijie Zhang Xiaoyun Ding Nurse Participation in Colonoscopy Observation versus the Colonoscopist Alone for Polyp and Adenoma Detection: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials Gastroenterology Research and Practice |
| title | Nurse Participation in Colonoscopy Observation versus the Colonoscopist Alone for Polyp and Adenoma Detection: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials |
| title_full | Nurse Participation in Colonoscopy Observation versus the Colonoscopist Alone for Polyp and Adenoma Detection: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials |
| title_fullStr | Nurse Participation in Colonoscopy Observation versus the Colonoscopist Alone for Polyp and Adenoma Detection: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials |
| title_full_unstemmed | Nurse Participation in Colonoscopy Observation versus the Colonoscopist Alone for Polyp and Adenoma Detection: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials |
| title_short | Nurse Participation in Colonoscopy Observation versus the Colonoscopist Alone for Polyp and Adenoma Detection: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials |
| title_sort | nurse participation in colonoscopy observation versus the colonoscopist alone for polyp and adenoma detection a meta analysis of randomized controlled trials |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/7631981 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT leixu nurseparticipationincolonoscopyobservationversusthecolonoscopistaloneforpolypandadenomadetectionametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT yuzhang nurseparticipationincolonoscopyobservationversusthecolonoscopistaloneforpolypandadenomadetectionametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT haojunsong nurseparticipationincolonoscopyobservationversusthecolonoscopistaloneforpolypandadenomadetectionametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT weihongwang nurseparticipationincolonoscopyobservationversusthecolonoscopistaloneforpolypandadenomadetectionametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT sijiezhang nurseparticipationincolonoscopyobservationversusthecolonoscopistaloneforpolypandadenomadetectionametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT xiaoyunding nurseparticipationincolonoscopyobservationversusthecolonoscopistaloneforpolypandadenomadetectionametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials |