Publication Date:
2012-09-08
Description:
We read with interest the articles by Rastogi et al 1 and de Wijkerslooth et al 2 describing two randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) of cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) versus standard colonoscopy (SC) in Western populations. These trials both used a parallel randomised study design, but yielded conflicting results with regard to adenoma detection rate. While Rastogi et al 1 found a significantly higher adenoma detection rate with CAC compared with SC, de Wijkerslooth et al 2 demonstrated no difference between the two groups. The power of a single, parallel randomised study to detect a difference in polyp detection rate between two colonoscopic techniques is severely limited by uncertainty as to the distribution of polyps between trial arms. Chance imbalances in the number of polyps may occur that are large in comparison with the expected difference in detection rate between the two techniques under evaluation. However, if several...
Print ISSN:
0017-5749
Electronic ISSN:
1468-3288
Topics:
Medicine
Permalink
