Comparative Efficacy of Colonoscope Distal Attachment Devices in Increasing Rates of Adenoma Detection: A Network Meta-analysis

Antonio Facciorusso, Valentina Del Prete, Rosario Vincenzo Buccino, Nicola Della Valle, Maurizio Cosimo Nacchiero, Fabio Monica, Renato Cannizzaro, Nicola Muscatiello

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review


Background & Aims: Several add-on devices have been developed to increase rates of colon adenoma detection (ADR). We assessed their overall and comparative efficacy, and estimated absolute magnitude of benefit through a network meta-analysis. Methods: We searched the PubMed/Medline and Embase database through March 2017 and identified 25 randomized controlled trials (comprising 16,103 patients) that compared the efficacy of add-on devices (cap; Endocuff; Arc Medical Design Ltd, Leeds, UK, and Endorings; Us Endoscopy, Mentor, OH) with each other or with standard colonoscopy. The primary outcome was ADR; secondary outcomes included rate of polyp detection, and rate of and time to cecal intubation. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses, and appraised quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. We estimated the magnitude of increase in ADR by low-performing endoscopists (baseline ADR, 10%) and high-performing endoscopists (baseline ADR, 40%) with use of these devices. Results: Overall, distal attachment devices increased ADR compared with standard colonoscopy (relative risk [RR], 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03–1.23; low-quality evidence), with potential absolute increases in ADR to 11.3% for low-performing endoscopists and to 45.2% for high-performing endoscopists. In a comparative evaluation, we found low-quality evidence that Endocuff increases ADR compared with standard colonoscopy (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.03–1.41), with anticipated increases in ADR to 12% for low-performing endoscopists and to 48% for high-performing endoscopists. We found very low quality evidence to support the use of Endorings (RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.86–3.36) or caps (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.96–1.19) vs standard colonoscopy for increasing ADR. The benefit of one distal attachment device over another was uncertain due to very low quality evidence. Conclusions: Based on network meta-analysis, we anticipate only modest improvement in ADRs with use of distal attachment devices, especially in low-performing endoscopists.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1209-1219.e9
JournalClinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Issue number8
Publication statusPublished - Aug 1 2018


  • Cap-Assisted
  • Colon Cancer
  • Tumor

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hepatology
  • Gastroenterology


Dive into the research topics of 'Comparative Efficacy of Colonoscope Distal Attachment Devices in Increasing Rates of Adenoma Detection: A Network Meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this