Background and study aims: Several studies have evaluated the utility of double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) and capsule endoscopy (CE) for patients with small-bowel disease showing inconsistent results. The aim of this study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of overtube-assisted enteroscopy (OAE) as well as the diagnostic concordance between OAE and CE for small-bowel polyps and tumors. Patients and methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in which the results of OAE were compared with the results of CE for the evaluation of small-bowel polyps and tumors. When data for surgically resected lesions were available, the histopathological results of OAE and surgical specimens were compared. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio for the diagnosis of small-bowel polyps and tumors were analyzed. Secondarily, the rates of diagnostic concordance and discordance between OAE and CE were calculated. Results: There were 15 full-length studies with a total of 821 patients that met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio were as follows: 0.89 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.84 – 0.93), with heterogeneity χ2 = 41.23 (P = 0.0002) and inconsistency (I 2) = 66.0 %; 0.97 (95 %CI 0.95 – 0.98), with heterogeneity χ2 = 45.27 (P = 0.07) and inconsistency (I 2) = 69.1 %; 16.61 (95 %CI 3.74 – 73.82), with heterogeneity Cochrane’s Q = 225.19 (P < 0.01) and inconsistency (I 2) = 93.8 %; and 0.14 (95 %CI 0.05 – 0.35), with heterogeneity Cochrane’s Q = 81.01 (P < .01) and inconsistency (I 2) = 82.7 %, respectively. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) curve was constructed, and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.97. Conclusion: OAE is an accurate test for the detection of small-bowel polyps and tumors. OAE and CE have a high diagnostic concordance rate for small-bowel polyps and tumors.This study was registered in the PROSPERO international database () with the study number CRD42015016000.

Background: To investigate the available data on the treatment of early colorectal cancer (CRC), either endoscopically or surgically.Methods: Two independent reviewers searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL COCHRANE, LILACS and EBSCO for articles published up to August 2015. No language or dates filters were applied.Inclusion criteria were studies with published data about patients with early colonic or rectal cancer undergoing either endoscopic resection (i.e., mucosectomy or submucosal dissection) or surgical resection (i.e., open or laparoscopic). Extracted data items undergoing meta-analysis were en bloc resection rate, curative resection rate, and complications. A complementary analysis was performed on procedure time. The risk of bias among studies was evaluated with funnel-plot expressions, and sensitivity analyses were carried out whenever a high heterogeneity was found. The risk of bias within studies was assessed with the Newcastle score.Results: A total of 12,819 articles were identified in the preliminary search. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, three cohort studies with a total of 768 patients undergoing endoscopic resection and 552 patients undergoing surgical resection were included. The en bloc resection rate risk difference was −11% Conclusions: According to the current available data, the treatment of early CRC by surgical resection is associated with higher curative resection rates and higher en bloc resection rates, despite of higher complications rates, as compared to endoscopic resection. Shorter procedure times are associated with the endoscopic methods of treatment, however high heterogeneity levels limit this conclusion.

No abstract