Sa1005 – Utility of and Compliance with Recommended Surveillance Guidelines for 3-10 Non-High-Risk Colon Adenomas

Risk of Metachronous Colorectal Advanced Neoplasia and Cancer in Patients With 3–4 Nonadvanced Adenomas at Index Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Through literature search, we identified 3,265 potentially relevant studies and 29 studies by screening the titles and abstracts. Both published articles and conference abstracts were reviewed, and 15 studies (12 published articles (6,10–12,17–24) and 3 abstracts (25–27)) were included in the final meta-analysis (6,10–12,17–27). A summary of the review process is presented in Figure 1.…”

“…For example, for bowel preparation, patients with poor or inadequate bowel preparation were excluded in 8 of 15 included studies (10,(17)(18)(19)(20)22,24,25). The definitions of adequate bowel preparation were slightly different in each study, and 5 studies did not mention bowel preparation (12,21,23,26,27). Therefore, our meta-analysis was performed without considering factors related to quality, such as bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate (ADR), because several quality indicators were not included in all study.…”

“…A summary of the review process is presented in Figure 1. All included studies were population-based cohort studies, of which 3 were prospective (17,21,23) and 10 were multicenter studies (6,12,17,(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)26,27). Seven studies were from the United States (n 5 13,136), 4 were from South Korea (n 5 16,984), 1 study was from Spain (n 5 3,535), 1 was from Japan (n 5 1,147), 1 was from the United Kingdom (n 5 1,029), and 1 was from Israel (n 5 544).…”