7 research outputs found
Discs Large Homolog 5 (DLG5) Gene Polymorphism and Crohn’s Disease: A Meta-Analysis of the Published Studies
The real pathophysiology of Crohn’s disease is unknown. The higher prevalence of Crohn’s disease in Caucasian and Jewish ethnicities, as well as its familial aggregation and higher concordance among monozygotic twins, suggest some roles for genes in its development, clinical progression, and outcome. Recent original studies have indicated DLG5113G/A gene polymorphism as a risk factor for Crohn’s disease. Meanwhile, the results of these studies are not consistent. We performed the current meta-analysis to understand whether there is any association between DLG5 gene polymorphism and the risk of Crohn’s disease. PubMed was searched to find the case-control studies on DLG5 gene polymorphisms and Crohn’s disease. This search compiled 65 articles and based on our criteria. 11 articles were included in this meta-analysis. The association between the DLG5 113G/A polymorphism and the risk of disease was assessed using odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Heterogeneity was evaluated based on I2 values. Random and fixed-effect models were used when I2>50% and I2≤50%, respectively. Eleven studies with a total of 4648 cases and 5677 controls were pooled. Based on our meta-analysis, DLG5113G/A gene polymorphism both at genotypic and allelic levels were not associated with the risk of Crohn’s disease. Pooled data indicated no significant association between DLG5113G/A gene polymorphism and the development of Crohn’s disease. In order to achieve a superior conclusion, multicenter studies on larger number of patients are recommended
Recommended from our members
Does Addition of High-Dose Simethicone to Standard Bowel Preparation for Screening Colonoscopy Have an Effect on Adenoma Detection Rate: A Single-Blind Clinical Trial
Recommended from our members
The role of oral simethicone on the adenoma detection rate and other quality indicators of screening colonoscopy: a randomized, controlled, observer-blinded clinical trial
Combining simethicone (SIM) with a colon preparation agent has been shown to improve mucosal visibility during screening colonoscopy, but its effect on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) remains unclear. SIM is commonly used through the endoscope to eliminate bubbles during endoscopy. However, this practice recently has been associated with endoscope-transmitted infections. Our aims were to determine the role of SIM added to a polyethylene glycol preparation on the ADR, procedure times, colon preparation, and intraprocedural use of SIM.
This was a randomized, controlled, observer-blinded, clinical trial of patients undergoing screening colonoscopy. Patients with a high risk of colorectal cancer were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned to 2 different preparations: polyethylene glycol plus SIM or polyethylene glycol. Two endoscopists blinded to patient preparation regimens scored its quality by using the Boston Bowel Preparation scale (BBPS) and the bubble scale. Interobserver agreement was calculated. The polyp detection rate, ADR, intraprocedural use of SIM, cecal intubation time, and withdrawal time were recorded. For study purposes, cecal intubation time and withdrawal time were combined to determine the effective procedure time.
No significant difference between the polyethylene glycol plus SIM and polyethylene glycol arms was seen regarding the ADR (33.3% vs 38.8%; P = .881) and effective procedure time (759.3 ± 253.1 seconds vs 800.2 ± 459.6 seconds; P = .373), respectively. Intraprocedural use of SIM as well as the bubble scale score were significantly lower in the polyethylene glycol plus SIM arm (1.6% vs 48.9%; P ≤ .05) and (0.1 vs 2.1; P ≤ .05), respectively. Conversely, no difference was found in the BBPS scores. The interobserver agreement for both scores was strong (bubble scale score kappa = .537; P < .05; BBPS score kappa = .184; P <.05).
Adding SIM to a polyethylene glycol preparation did not improve the ADR or effective procedure time. Nevertheless, it resulted in lower bubble scale scores, and more importantly, in less intraprocedural use of SIM. This simple and inexpensive intervention may have the potential to reduce the risk of endoscope-transmitted infections. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03119168.)