-
BMJ Open Oct 2019Evaluate effectiveness, harms and burdens of faecal blood testing, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer over 15 years. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Evaluate effectiveness, harms and burdens of faecal blood testing, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer over 15 years.
DESIGN
We performed an update of a Cochrane systematic review, and performed network meta-analysis comparing randomised trials evaluating colorectal cancer screening with guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) (annual, biennial), faecal immunochemical test (FIT) (annual, biennial), sigmoidoscopy (once-only) or colonoscopy (once-only) in a healthy population, aged 50-79 years. We conducted subgroup analysis on sex. Follow-up >5 years was required for analysis of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.
RESULTS
12 randomised trials proved eligible. Compared with no-screening, we found high certainty evidence for sigmoidoscopy screening slightly reducing colorectal cancer incidence (relative risk (RR) 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI 0.70 to 0.83) and mortality (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.80), while gFOBT screening had little or no difference on colorectal cancer incidence, but slightly reduced colorectal cancer mortality (annual: RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86, biennial: RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.82 to 0.93). No screening test reduced mortality nor incidence by more than six per 1000 screened over 15 years. Sigmoidoscopy had a greater effect in men, for both colorectal cancer incidence (women: RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.81 to 0.92, men: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.79), and mortality (women: RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.96, men: RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.75) (moderate certainty).
CONCLUSIONS
In a 15-year perspective, sigmoidoscopy reduces colorectal cancer incidence, while sigmoidoscopy, annual and biennial gFOBT all reduce colorectal cancer mortality. Sigmoidoscopy may reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality more in men than in women.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42018093401.
Topics: Adenoma; Aged; Carcinoma; Colonoscopy; Colorectal Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Humans; Middle Aged; Occult Blood; Sigmoidoscopy
PubMed: 31578199
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032773 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2015This is a second update of a Cochrane Review originally published in Issue 2, 2009. Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) is a non-pharmacological agent,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is a second update of a Cochrane Review originally published in Issue 2, 2009. Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) is a non-pharmacological agent, based on delivering low voltage electrical currents to the skin. TENS is used by people to treat a variety of pain conditions.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic effectiveness of TENS, as a sole treatment, for acute pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 3 December 2014: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; and AMED. We also checked the reference lists of included trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with acute pain (< 12 weeks) if they examined TENS given as a sole treatment and assessed pain with subjective pain scales. Trials were eligible if they compared TENS to placebo TENS, no treatment controls, pharmacological interventions or non-pharmacological interventions. We excluded trials on experimental pain, case reports, clinical observations, letters, abstracts or reviews. Also we excluded trials investigating the effect of TENS on pain during childbirth (labour), primary dysmenorrhoea or dental procedures. Studies where TENS was given with another treatment as part of the formal trial design were excluded. We did not restrict any articles based on language of publication.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and carried out study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment and analyses of data. We extracted data on the following: types of participants and pain condition, trial design and methods, treatment parameters, adverse effects, and outcome measures. We contacted trial authors for additional information if necessary.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 trials in the original review (2009) and included no further trials in the first update (2011). An additional seven new trials met the inclusion criteria in this second update. In total, we included 19 RCTs involving 1346 participants at entry, with 11 trials awaiting classification either because the full text was unavailable or information in the full text failed to clarify eligibility. We excluded most trials because TENS was given in combination with another treatment as part of the formal study design or TENS was not delivered using appropriate TENS technique. The types of acute pain included in this Cochrane Review were procedural pain, e.g. cervical laser treatment, venepuncture, screening flexible sigmoidoscopy and non-procedural pain, e.g. postpartum uterine contractions and rib fractures. We pooled data for pain intensity for six trials (seven comparisons) comparing TENS with placebo but the I(2) statistic suggested substantial heterogeneity. Mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on a visual analogue scale (VAS, 100 mm) was -24.62 mm (95% CI -31.79 to -17.46) in favour of TENS. Data for the proportion of participants achieving ≥ 50% reduction in pain was pooled for four trials (seven comparisons) and relative risk was 3.91 (95% CI 2.42 to 6.32) in favour of TENS over placebo. We pooled data for pain intensity from five trials (seven comparisons) but the I(2) statistic suggested considerable heterogeneity. MD was -19.05 mm (95% CI -27.30 to -10.79) in favour of TENS using a random-effects model. It was not possible to pool other data. There was a high risk of bias associated with inadequate sample sizes in treatment arms and unsuccessful blinding of treatment interventions. Seven trials reported minor adverse effects, such as mild erythema and itching underneath the electrodes and participants disliking TENS sensation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This Cochrane Review update includes seven new trials, in addition to the 12 trials reviewed in the first update in 2011. The analysis provides tentative evidence that TENS reduces pain intensity over and above that seen with placebo (no current) TENS when administered as a stand-alone treatment for acute pain in adults. The high risk of bias associated with inadequate sample sizes in treatment arms and unsuccessful blinding of treatment interventions makes definitive conclusions impossible. There was incomplete reporting of treatment in many reports making replication of trials impossible.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Humans; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
PubMed: 26075732
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006142.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018Endoscopic assessment of mucosal disease activity is routinely used to determine eligibility and response to therapy in clinical trials of ulcerative colitis. The... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Endoscopic assessment of mucosal disease activity is routinely used to determine eligibility and response to therapy in clinical trials of ulcerative colitis. The operating properties of the existing endoscopic scoring indices are unclear.
OBJECTIVES
A systematic review was undertaken to evaluate the development and operating characteristics of endoscopic scoring indices for the evaluation of ulcerative colitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL from inception to 5 July 2016. We also searched references and conference proceedings (Digestive Disease Week, United European Gastroenterology Week, European Crohn's and Colitis Organization).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Any study design (e.g. randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case series) that evaluated endoscopic indices for evaluation of ulcerative colitis disease activity were considered for inclusion. Eligible participants were adult patients (> 16 years), diagnosed with ulcerative colitis using conventional clinical, radiologic and endoscopic criteria.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently reviewed the studies identified from the literature search. These authors also independently extracted and recorded data on the number of patients enrolled; number of patients per treatment arm; patient characteristics including age and gender distribution; endoscopic index; and outcomes such as reliability (intra-rater and inter-rater), validity (content, construct, criterion), responsiveness and feasibility. Any disagreements regarding study inclusion or data extraction were resolved by discussion and consensus with a third author. Risk of bias was assessed by determining whether assessors were blinded to clinical information and whether assessors scored the endoscopic index independently. We also assessed the methodological quality of the validation studies using the COSMIN checklist MAIN RESULTS: A total of 23 reports of 20 studies met the pre-defined inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Of the 20 included validation studies, 19 endoscopic scoring indices were assessed, including the Azzolini Classification, Baron Score, Blackstone Endoscopic Interpretation, Chinese Grading System of Ulcerative Colitis, Endoscopic Activty Index, Jeroen Score, Magnifying Colonoscopy Grade, Matts Score, Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore, Modified Baron Score, Modified Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore, Osada Score, Rachmilewtiz Endoscopic Score, St. Mark's Index, Ulcerative Colitis Colonoscopic Index of Serverity (UCCIS), endoscopic component of the Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Index (UCDAI), Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS), Witts Sigmoidoscopic Score and Watson Grade. The individuals who performed the endoscopic scoring were blinded to clinical and/or histologic information in ten of the included studies, not blinded to clinical and/or histologic information in one of the included studies, and it was unclear whether blinding occurred in the remaining nine included studies. Independent observation was confirmed in four of the included studies, unclear in five of the included studies, and non-applicable (since inter-rater reliability was not assessed) in the remaining eleven included studies. The methodological quality (COSMIN checklist) of most of the included studies was rated as 'good' or 'excellent'. One study that assessed responsiveness was rated as 'fair'. The inter-rater reliability of nine endoscopic scoring indices including the Baron Score, Blackstone Endoscopic Interpretation, Endoscopic Activity Index, Matts Score, Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore, Osada Score, UCCIS, UCEIS, Watson Grade was assessed in seven studies, with estimates of correlation, ƙ, ranging from 0.44 to 0.97. The iIntra-rater reliability of seven endoscopic scoring indices including the Baron Score, Blackstone Endoscopic Interpretation, Matts Score, Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore, Osada Score, UCCIS and UCEIS was assessed in three studies, with estimates of correlation, ƙ, ranging from 0.41 to 0.86. No studies assessed content validity. Three studies evaluated the criterion validity of three endoscopic scoring indices including the Rachmilewitz Endoscopic Score, Magnifying Colonoscopy Grade and the UCCIS. These indices were correlated with objective markers of disease activity including albumin, blood leukocytes, C-reactive protein, fecal calprotectin, hemoglobin, mucosal interleukin-8 concentration and platelet count. Correlation estimates ranged from r = -0.19 to 0.83. Thirteen endoscopic scoring indices were tested for construct validity in 13 studies. Estimates of correlation between the endoscopic scoring indices and other measures of disease activity ranged from r = 0.27 to 0.93. Two studies explored the responsiveness of four endoscopic scoring indices including the Mayo Endoscopic Subscore, Modified Baron Score, Modified Mayo Endoscopic Subscore and UCEIS. One study concluded that the Modified Baron Score, Modified Mayo Endoscopic Subscore and UCEIS had similar responsiveness for detecting disease change in ulcerative colitis. The other included study concluded that the UCEIS may be the most accurate endoscopic scoring tool. None of the included studies formally assessed feasibility.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
While the UCEIS, UCCIS and Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore have undergone extensive validation, none of these instruments have been fully validated and only two studies assessed responsiveness. Further research on the operating properties of these indices is needed given the lack of a fully-validated endoscopic scoring instrument for the evaluation of disease activity in ulcerative colitis.
Topics: Colitis, Ulcerative; Colonoscopy; Humans; Reproducibility of Results; Severity of Illness Index; Sigmoidoscopy
PubMed: 29338066
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011450.pub2 -
PloS One 2023Physical harm from Colorectal Cancer Screening tends to be inadequately measured and reported in clinical trials. Also, studies of ongoing Colorectal Cancer Screening... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Physical harm from Colorectal Cancer Screening tends to be inadequately measured and reported in clinical trials. Also, studies of ongoing Colorectal Cancer Screening programs have found more frequent and severe physical harm from screening procedures, e.g., bleeding and perforation, than reported in previous trials. Therefore, the objectives of the study were to systematically review the evidence on the risk of bleeding and perforation in Colorectal Cancer Screening.
DESIGN
Systematic review with descriptive statistics and random-effects meta-analyses.
METHODS
We systematically searched five databases for studies investigating physical harms related to Colorectal Cancer Screening. We assessed the internal and the external validity using the ROBINS-I tool and the GRADE approach. Harm estimates was calculated using mixed Poisson regression models in random-effect meta-analyses.
RESULTS
We included 89 studies. Reporting and measurement of harms was inadequate in most studies. In effect, the risk of bias was critical in 97.3% and serious in 98.3% of studies. All GRADE ratings were very low. Based on severe findings with not-critical risk of bias and 30 days follow-up, the risk of bleedings per 100,000 people screened were 8 [2;24] for sigmoidoscopy, 229 [129;408] for colonoscopy following fecal immunochemical test, 68 [39;118] for once-only colonoscopy, and 698 [443;1045] for colonoscopy following any screening tests. The risk of perforations was 88 [56;138] for colonoscopy following fecal immunochemical test and 53 [25;112] for once-only colonoscopy. There were no findings within the subcategory severe perforation with long-term follow-up for colonoscopy following any screening tests and sigmoidoscopy.
DISCUSSION
Harm estimates varied widely across studies, reporting and measurement of harms was mostly inadequate, and the risk of bias and GRADE ratings were very poor, collectively leading to underestimation of harm. In effect, we consider our estimates of perforation and bleeding as conservative, highlighting the need for better reporting and measurement in future studies.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017058844.
Topics: Humans; Sigmoidoscopy; Early Detection of Cancer; Colorectal Neoplasms; Colonoscopy; Mass Screening; Hemorrhage; Occult Blood
PubMed: 37906565
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292797 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Jun 2019Immune checkpoint inhibitors are used in the treatment of multiple advanced stage cancers but can induce immune-mediated colitis necessitating treatment with...
BACKGROUND
Immune checkpoint inhibitors are used in the treatment of multiple advanced stage cancers but can induce immune-mediated colitis necessitating treatment with immunosuppressive medications. Diagnostic colonoscopy is often performed but requires bowel preparation and may delay diagnosis and treatment. Sigmoidoscopy can be performed rapidly without oral bowel preparation or sedation.
AIMS
Characterize the colonic distribution of immune-mediated colitis to determine the most efficient endoscopic approach.
METHODS
A systematic review of checkpoint inhibitor-induced colitis case reports and series was conducted in both PubMed and Embase through 3 January 2017. A single centre retrospective chart review of patients who underwent endoscopic evaluation for diarrhoea after treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor (ipilimumab, nivolumab or pembrolizumab) between 1 January 2011 and 3 January 2017 was performed. Clinical, endoscopic and histologic data were collected.
RESULTS
A detailed systematic review resulted in 61 studies, in which 226 cases of colitis were diagnosed by lower endoscopy (125 colonoscopy, 101 sigmoidoscopy). Only four patients had isolated findings proximal to the left colon. In our centre, 31 patients had histologic features of checkpoint inhibitor-induced colitis, for which 29 patients had complete data. The left colon was involved in all cases. Sigmoidoscopy would be sufficient to diagnose >98% of reported cases of checkpoint inhibitor-mediated colitis diagnosed by lower endoscopy.
CONCLUSIONS
Moderate to severe checkpoint inhibitor-induced colitis involves the left colon in the majority of cases (>98%). Sigmoidoscopy should be the initial endoscopic procedure in the evaluation of this condition.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Colitis; Colon; Humans; Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Sigmoidoscopy
PubMed: 31035308
DOI: 10.1111/apt.15263 -
PloS One 2023Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is effective in reducing both incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy and stool tests are most frequently used for this purpose....
INTRODUCTION
Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is effective in reducing both incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy and stool tests are most frequently used for this purpose. Sigmoidoscopy is an alternative screening measure with a strong evidence base. Due to its distinct characteristics, it might be preferred by subgroups. The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening compared to other screening methods and to identify influencing parameters.
METHODS
A systematic literature search for the time frame 01/2010-01/2023 was conducted using the databases MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit, Web of Science, NHS EED, as well as the Cost-Effectiveness Registry. Full economic analyses examining sigmoidoscopy as a screening measure for the general population at average risk for CRC were included. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. All included studies were critically assessed based on a questionnaire for modelling studies.
RESULTS
Twenty-five studies are included in the review. Compared to no screening, sigmoidoscopy is a cost-effective screening strategy for CRC. When modelled as a single measure strategy, sigmoidoscopy is mostly dominated by colonoscopy or modern stool tests. When combined with annual stool testing, sigmoidoscopy in 5-year intervals is more effective and less costly than the respective strategies alone. The results of the studies are influenced by varying assumptions on adherence, costs, and test characteristics.
CONCLUSION
The combination of sigmoidoscopy and stool testing represents a cost-effective screening strategy that has not received much attention in current guidelines. Further research is needed that goes beyond a narrow focus on screening technology and models different, preference-based participation behavior in subgroups.
Topics: Humans; Early Detection of Cancer; Sigmoidoscopy; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Colonoscopy; Colorectal Neoplasms
PubMed: 37594967
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290353 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Apr 2014To review, summarise, and compare the evidence for effectiveness of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy in the prevention of colorectal cancer occurrence... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Effect of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.
OBJECTIVES
To review, summarise, and compare the evidence for effectiveness of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy in the prevention of colorectal cancer occurrence and deaths.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Two investigators independently extracted characteristics and results of identified studies and performed standardised quality ratings.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials and observational studies in English on the impact of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in the general population at average risk.
RESULTS
For screening sigmoidoscopy, four randomised controlled trials and 10 observational studies were identified that consistently found a major reduction in distal but not proximal colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Summary estimates of reduction in distal colorectal cancer incidence and mortality were 31% (95% confidence intervals 26% to 37%) and 46% (33% to 57%) in intention to screen analysis, 42% (29% to 53%) and 61% (27% to 79%) in per protocol analysis of randomised controlled trials, and 64% (50% to 74%) and 66% (38% to 81%) in observational studies. For screening colonoscopy, evidence was restricted to six observational studies, the results of which suggest tentatively an even stronger reduction in distal colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, along with a significant reduction in mortality from cancer of the proximal colon. Indirect comparisons of results of observational studies on screening sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy suggest a 40% to 60% lower risk of incident colorectal cancer and death from colorectal cancer after screening colonoscopy even though this incremental risk reduction was statistically significant for deaths from cancer of the proximal colon only.
CONCLUSIONS
Compelling and consistent evidence from randomised controlled trials and observational studies suggests that screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy prevent most deaths from distal colorectal cancer. Observational studies suggest that colonoscopy compared with flexible sigmoidoscopy decreases mortality from cancer of the proximal colon. This added value should be examined in further research and weighed against the higher costs, discomfort, complication rates, capacities needed, and possible differences in compliance.
Topics: Canada; Colonic Neoplasms; Colonoscopy; Early Detection of Cancer; Europe; Humans; Incidence; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectal Neoplasms; Risk Reduction Behavior; Sigmoidoscopy; United States
PubMed: 24922745
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g2467 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023The question of whether flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) affects incidence or mortality remains unclear. In this study, we conducted a...
BACKGROUND
The question of whether flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) affects incidence or mortality remains unclear. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review to explore this issue.
METHODS
A systematic search of , , and was performed for cohort studies (CS), case-control studies, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of people who underwent FS and reported mortality or incidence of CRC until 11 December 2022. Relative risk (RR) was applied as an estimate of the effect of interest. To combine the RRs and 95% confidence intervals, a random-effects model was used. The quality of the included studies and evidence was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale, the Jadad scale, and the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation System."
RESULTS
There were a total of six RCTs and one CS, comprising 702,275 individuals. FS was found to be associated with a 26% RR reduction in CRC incidence (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.84) and a 30% RR reduction in CRC mortality (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.85). In the incidence subgroup analysis, FS significantly reduced the incidence of CRC compared with non-screening, usual care, and fecal immunochemical testing. Significance was also shown in men, women, distal site, stages III-IV, ages 55-59, and age over 60. In terms of the mortality subgroup analysis, the results were roughly the same as those of incidence.
CONCLUSION
According to this study, FS might reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC. To confirm this finding, further prospective clinical studies should be conducted based on a larger-scale population.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023388925.
PubMed: 38162502
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1288086 -
The American Journal of Gastroenterology Dec 2018Addressing procedure-related anxiety should improve adherence to colorectal cancer screening programs and diagnostic colonoscopy. We performed a systematic review to...
OBJECTIVES
Addressing procedure-related anxiety should improve adherence to colorectal cancer screening programs and diagnostic colonoscopy. We performed a systematic review to assess anxiety among individuals undergoing colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS).
METHODS
We searched multiple electronic databases for studies evaluating anxiety associated with colonoscopy or FS published from 2005 to 2017. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality. The main outcomes were the magnitude of pre-procedure anxiety, types of concerns, predictors of anxiety, and effectiveness of anxiety-lowering interventions in individuals undergoing lower endoscopy. The protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO.
RESULTS
Fifty-eight studies (24,490 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Patients undergoing colonoscopy had a higher mean level of anxiety than that previously reported in the general population, with some studies reporting more than 50% of patients having moderate-to-severe anxiety. Areas of anxiety-related concern included bowel preparation, difficulties with the procedure (embarrassment, pain, possible complications, and sedation), and concerns about diagnosis; including fear of being diagnosed with cancer. Female gender, higher baseline anxiety, functional abdominal pain, lower education, and lower income were associated with greater anxiety prior to colonoscopy. Providing higher-quality information before colonoscopy, particularly with a video, shows promise as a way of reducing pre-procedure anxiety but the studies to date are of low quality.
CONCLUSIONS
A large proportion of patients undergoing colonoscopy report anxiety before the procedure. Improvement in pre-procedure information delivery and evaluation of approaches to reduce anxiety is required, especially for those with predictors of pre-procedure anxiety.
Topics: Anxiety; Colonoscopy; Colorectal Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Humans; Patient Education as Topic; Preoperative Period; Prevalence; Severity of Illness Index; Sigmoidoscopy
PubMed: 30385831
DOI: 10.1038/s41395-018-0398-8 -
World Journal of Gastrointestinal... May 2017To investigate the role of music in reducing anxiety and discomfort during flexible sigmoidoscopy.
AIM
To investigate the role of music in reducing anxiety and discomfort during flexible sigmoidoscopy.
METHODS
A systematic review of all comparative studies up to November 2016, without language restriction that were identified from MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (1960-2016), and EMBASE (1991-2016). Further searches were performed using the bibliographies of articles and abstracts from major conferences such as the ESCP, NCRI, ASGBI and ASCRS. MeSH and text word terms used included "sigmoidoscopy", "music" and "endoscopy" and "anxiety". All comparative studies reporting on the effect of music on anxiety or pain during flexible sigmoidoscopy, in adults, were included. Outcome data was extracted by 2 authors independently using outcome measures defined a priori. Quality assessment was performed.
RESULTS
A total of 4 articles published between 1994 and 2010, fulfilled the selection criteria. Data were extracted and analysed using OpenMetaAnalyst. Patients who listened to music during their flexible sigmoidoscopy had less anxiety compared to control groups [Random effects; SMD: 0.851 (0.467, 1.235), S.E = 0.196, < 0.001]. There was no statistically significant heterogeneity ( = 0.085, df = 1, = 0.77, = 0). Patients who listened to music during their flexible sigmoidoscopy had less pain compared to those who did not, but this difference did not reach statistical significance [Random effects; SMD: 0.345 (-0.014, 0.705), S.E = 0.183, = 0.06]. Patients who listened to music during their flexible sigmoidoscopy felt it was a useful intervention, compared to those who did not ( < 0.001). There was no statistically significant heterogeneity ( = 0.528, = 0).
CONCLUSION
Music appeared to benefit patients undergoing flexible sigmoidoscopies in relation to anxiety and was deemed a helpful intervention. Pain may also be reduced however further investigation is required to ascertain this.
PubMed: 28572877
DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v9.i5.228