Meta-Analysis
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Gastroenterol. Mar 7, 2019; 25(9): 1158-1170
Published online Mar 7, 2019. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i9.1158
Table 1 Characteristics of included studies
Author (yr)CountryStudy periodCentres, nEndoscopists, nDeviceEndoscopesPatients, nEAC/CC, n/nIndicationFemale EAC/CC, n (%)Age EAC/CC, mean ± SDScreening EAC/CC, n (%)Bowel Preparation EAC/CC
Floer et al[15]Germany02.2014-07.2014410EndocuffHD492249/243Mixed127 (51)/134 (55.1)64 ± 3.2/63 ± 3.3NR11 (1-2)/1 (1-2) [median (IQR)]
Van Doorn et al[16]Netherlands08.2013-10.2014520EndocuffHD1063530/533Mixed266 (50.2)/248 (46.5)65 ± 2.2/65 ± 2.3201 (37.9)/197 (36.9)29 (7-9)/8 (7-9) [median (IQR)]
Biecker et al[17]Germany02.2013-08.201326EndocuffHD498245/253Mixed127 (51.8)/122 (48.2)65 ± 3.3/68 ± 3NR169% good/65% good
De Palma et al[18]Italy02.2015 -03.201614EndocuffHD274137/137Mixed66 (48.2)/65 (47.4)55 ± 12.6/55.7 ± 12.332 (23.4)/29 (21.2)7.08 ± 1.06/7.18 ± 0.97 [mean ± SD]
Bhattacharyya et al[19]United Kingdom09.2014-09.201514Endocuff VisionHD531266/265FOBT (+) screening, surveillance104 (39.1)/85 (32.1)68 ± 1.2/67 ± 1.2180 (70.7)/186 (69.1)3Good/adequate 97.7% /Good adequate 97.7%
González-Fernández et al[20]Mexico04.2014-11.2015118EndocuffMixed337174/163Screening124 (71)/124 (76)60 ± 1.8/62 ± 2.5174 (100)/163 (100)27 (6-8)/7 (6-8) [median (IQR)]
Ngu et al[21]United Kingdom11.2014-02.2016748Endocuff VisionNot reported1772888/884FOBT (+) screening, surveillance381 (42.9)/ 382 (43.2)61.7 ± 11.7/62.1 ± 11.1274 (30.9)/282 (32)NR
Wada et al[22]Japan04.2015-09.201511EndocuffHD477239/238Mixed117 (48.9)/123 (51.7)61.2 ± 3.3/62.2 ± 3.389 (37.2)/74 (31.1)27.91 ± 0.94/7.88 ± 1.03 [mean ± SD]
Rex et al[23]United States, ItalyNR33EndocuffHD594299/295Mixed141 (47) /141 (47)63.2 ± 8.2/62.6 ± 8.3126 (42)/127 (43)28.12 ± 1.33 overall, no differences between the 2 groups