A meta-analysis on efficacy and safety: single-balloon vs. double-balloon enteroscopy

DSpace/Manakin Repository

A meta-analysis on efficacy and safety: single-balloon vs. double-balloon enteroscopy

Citable link to this page

 

 
Title: A meta-analysis on efficacy and safety: single-balloon vs. double-balloon enteroscopy
Author: Wadhwa, Vaibhav; Sethi, Saurabh; Tewani, Sumeet; Garg, Sushil Kumar; Pleskow, Douglas K.; Chuttani, Ram; Berzin, Tyler M.; Sethi, Nidhi; Sawhney, Mandeep S.

Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.

Citation: Wadhwa, Vaibhav, Saurabh Sethi, Sumeet Tewani, Sushil Kumar Garg, Douglas K. Pleskow, Ram Chuttani, Tyler M. Berzin, Nidhi Sethi, and Mandeep S. Sawhney. 2015. “A meta-analysis on efficacy and safety: single-balloon vs. double-balloon enteroscopy.” Gastroenterology Report 3 (2): 148-155. doi:10.1093/gastro/gov003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/gastro/gov003.
Full Text & Related Files:
Abstract: Background and aim: Double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) and single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) are new techniques capable of providing deep enteroscopy. Results of individual studies comparing these techniques have not been able to identify a superior strategy. Our aim was to systematically pool all available studies to compare the efficacy and safety of DBE with SBE for evaluation of the small bowel. Methods: Databases were searched, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The main outcome measures were complete small-bowel visualization, diagnostic yield, therapeutic yield, and complication rate. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan version 5.2). Meta-analysis was performed using fixed-effect or random-effect methods, depending on the absence or presence of significant heterogeneity. We used the χ2 and I2 test to assess heterogeneity between trials. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Four prospective, randomized, controlled trials with a total of 375 patients were identified. DBE was superior to SBE for visualization of the entire small bowel [pooled RR = 0.37 (95% CI: 0.19–0.73; P = 0.004)]. DBE and SBE were similar in ability to provide diagnosis [pooled RR = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.77–1.17; P = 0.62)]. There was no significant difference between DBE and SBE in therapeutic yield [pooled RR = 0.78 (95% CI: 0.59–1.04; P = 0.09)] and complication rate [pooled RR = 1.08 (95% CI: 0.28–4.22); P = 0.91]. Conclusions: DBE was superior to SBE with regard to complete small bowel visualization. DBE was similar to SBE with regard to diagnostic yield, ability to provide treatment and complication rate, but these results should be interpreted with caution as they is based on very few studies and the overall quality of the evidence was rated as low to moderate, due to the small sample size.
Published Version: doi:10.1093/gastro/gov003
Other Sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4423464/pdf/
Terms of Use: This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA
Citable link to this page: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:16120976
Downloads of this work:

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters