Effectiveness of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for 10 to 20 mm colorectal polyps: A protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

Background:Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a standard method commonly for removing 10 to 20 mm colorectal polyps. While the incidence of residual or recurrent after conventional EMR is remarkably high. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) as an alternative technique to conventional EMR for removing colorectal polyps has high adenoma detection and complete resection rates, improves patient comfort, decreases sedation needs, eliminates the risks associated with submucosal injection, and reduces snare and diathermy-induced mucosal injury. We will conduct a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of these two therapies in the management of 10 to 20 mm colorectal polyps.Methods:PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Science and Technology Journal Database and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database will be searched from inception of databases to November 2020 without language limitation. Two reviewers will independently conduct article selection, data collection, and assessment of risk of bias. Any disagreement will be resolved by discussion with the third reviewer. Review Manager Software 5.3 will be used for meta-analysis. The Cochrane risk of bias tool will be used to assess the risk of bias.Results:This study will provide a systematic synthesis of current published data to compare the effectiveness of UEMR and conventional EMR for 10 to 20 mm colorectal polyps.Conclusions:This systematic review and meta-analysis will provide clinical evidence as to whether UEMR is more effective and safer than conventional EMR for 10 to 20 mm colorectal polyps.Study registration number:INPLASY2020100006.