PURPOSE: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of visual distraction on adults undergoing colonoscopy.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library Database from their inception to February 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing visual distraction with non-visual distraction were considered for inclusion. The fixed-effects and random-effects models were used to pool the data from individual studies and the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used to determine the methodology quality.
RESULTS: This meta-analysis included four studies (N = 301) for pain level and total procedure time, three studies (N = 181) for satisfaction score, three studies (N = 196) for anxiety level, and four studie (N = 402) for willingness to repeat the procedure. The pooled analysis shown that significantly lower pain levels (SMD, - 0.25; 95% CI - 0.47 to - 0.02; P = 0.03), higher satisfaction score with the procedure (SMD, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.93; P
METHODS: We prospectively observed lesions with white light imaging (WLI), LCI, and BLI using both LED and LASER colonoscopies from January 2020 to August 2021. Images were graded by 27 endoscopists from nine countries using the polyp visibility score: 4 (excellent), 3 (good), 2 (fair), and 1 (poor) and the comparison score (LED better/similar/LASER better) for WLI/LCI/BLI images of each lesion.
RESULTS: Finally, 32 lesions (polyp size: 20.0 ± 15.2 mm) including 9 serrated lesions, 13 adenomas, and 10 T1 cancers were evaluated. The polyp visibility scores of LCI/WLI for international and Japan-expert endoscopists were 3.17 ± 0.73/3.17 ± 0.79 (p = 0.92) and 3.34 ± 0.78/2.84 ± 1.22 (p
METHODS: This quasi-experimental study was informed by the Implementation Research Logic Model and evaluated with the RE-AIM framework. Trained data collectors recruited by phone, randomly selected, asymptomatic adults aged 50-75 years from Segamat District, who previously completed a health census form for the South East Asia Community Observatory (SEACO). Participants were posted an iFOBT kit and asked to return a photo of the completed test for screening by health care professionals. A regression analysis of evaluation data was conducted to identify which variables were associated with the outcome indicators of 'study participation' and 'iFOBT completion' and the CRC-SIM was evaluated in terms of its appropriateness, feasibility and acceptability.
RESULTS: Seven hundred forty-seven eligible adults (52%) agreed to participate in this study and received an iFOBT kit. Participation was significantly lower amongst Chinese Malaysians (adjusted OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.35 - 0.59, p<0.001) compared to Malays and amongst participants from the rural sub-district (Gemereh) (adjusted OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 - 0.92, p=0.011) compared to the urban sub-district (Sungai Segamat). Less than half of participants (42%, n=311/747) completed the iFOBT. Test-kit completion was significantly higher amongst Chinese Malaysians (adjusted OR 3.15, 95% CI 2.11 - 4.69, p<0.001) and lower amongst participants with a monthly household income ≥RM 4,850 (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.39 - 0.87, p=0.009) compared to participants with a lower household income. The main reported reason for non-participation was 'not interested' (58.6%) and main implementation challenges related to invalid photographs from participants and engaging iFOBT positive participants in further clinic consultations and procedures.
CONCLUSION: Home-testing for CRC (test completion) appeared to be acceptable to only around one-fifth of the target population in Malaysia. However, mindful of the challenging circumstances surrounding the pandemic, the CRC-SIM merits consideration by public health planners as a method of increasing screening in Malaysia, and other low- and middle-income countries.
Methods: A survey study was performed in seven Asian countries. An email invitation with a link to the survey was sent to participants who were asked to complete the questionnaire consisting of eight clinical scenarios.
Results: Of the 137 doctors invited, 123 (89.8%) provided valid responses. Approximately 50% of the participants adhered to the guidelines regardless of the risk of adenoma, except in the case of tubulovillous adenoma ≥10 mm combined with high-grade dysplasia, in which 35% of the participants adhered to the guidelines. The participants were stratified according to the number of colonoscopies performed: ≥20 colonoscopies per month (high volume group) and <20 colonoscopies per month (low volume group). Higher adherence to the postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines was evident in the high volume group (60%) than in the low volume group (25%). The reasons for nonadherence included concern of missed polyps (59%), the low cost of colonoscopy (26%), concern of incomplete resection (25%), and concern of medical liability (15%).
Conclusions: A discrepancy between clinical practice and surveillance guidelines among physicians in Asia was found. Physicians in the low volume group frequently did not adhere to the guidelines, suggesting a need for continuing education and appropriate control. Concerns regarding the quality of colonoscopy and complete polypectomy were the main reasons for nonadherence.
METHODS: Thirty-seven patients were randomized to receive SCEA (n = 19) or placebo (n = 18) during colonoscopy. Additional rescue sedation was administered to patients if they had pain or discomfort during the procedure. Visual analogue scale was used to quantify the intensity of pain from the beginning to end of the procedure. Other variables analysed were the amount of sedation used, duration from start to caecal intubation, length of time for completion of colonoscopy and recovery time to home discharge.
RESULTS: Patients who received SCEA had a lower median pain score of 4.6 (interquartile range 5.7) compared to the placebo group of 6.0 (interquartile range 3.2). Statistical analysis comparing the groups revealed a non-significant P-value of 0.12, although more than 90% of the patients indicated willingness for SCEA as the primary analgesia if they were to repeat the procedure. Throughout the study, there were no adverse complications that occurred during the use of SCEA.
CONCLUSIONS: Even though this study did not demonstrate, a significance in pain reduction, SCEA remains a safe modality which, more than 90% of patients favoured as a substitute for pain relief during colonoscopy.
METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective-cohort study. We collected HGD and T1 lesions of ≤ 10 mm resected by CSP among 15 520 patients receiving CSP from 2014 to 2019 at nine related institutions, and we extracted only cases receiving definite follow-up colonoscopy after CSP of HGD and T1 lesions. We analyzed these tumor's characteristics and therapeutic results such as R0 resection and local recurrence and risk factors of recurrence.
RESULTS: We collected 103 patients (0.63%) and extracted 80 lesions in 74 patients receiving follow-up colonoscopy for CSP scar. Mean age was 68.4 ± 12.0, and male rate was 68.9% (51/80). The mean tumor size (mm) was 6.6 ± 2.5, and the rate of polypoid morphology and rectum location was 77.5% and 25.0%. The rate of magnified observation was 53.8%. The rates of en bloc resection and R0 resection were 92.5% and 37.5%. The local recurrence rate was 6.3% (5/80, median follow-up period: 24.0 months). The recurrence developed within 3 months after CSP for four out of five recurrent cases. Comparing five recurrent lesions to 75 non-recurrent lesions, a positive horizontal margin was a significant risk factor (60.0% vs 10.7%, P