Browsing by Subject "comparison"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A Review of the Genus Serratella Edmunds, 1959 in China with Description of a New Species (Ephemeroptera: Ephemerellidae)
    (MDPI, 2022-11-04) Ding , Manqing; Jacobus, Luke M.; Zhou , Changfa; IUPUC Division of Science
    Species in the genus Serratella Edmunds, 1959 from China have never been compared and photographed systematically. Six valid Chinese Serratella species are recognized and revised in this paper. Among them, the imagos of S. brevicauda Jacobus et al., 2009 are unknown; the nymph of this species has a stout, strong body, with remarkably short caudal filaments and maxillary palpi. In contrast, only the imago stage of Serratella fusongensis (Su and You, 1988) (=Serratella longipennis Zhou et al., 1997, syn. nov.) is known; it has relatively long penes with small dorsal projections. The nymphs of S. setigera Bajkova, 1967 have small abdominal tergal spines but distinct, stout, blunt bristles on the spines, and the apexes of the male penes are round and shallowly divided. The fourth species, S. acutiformis sp. nov., which was collected from Western China, has sharp penial apexes (imagos) and large abdominal spines (nymphs). Unlike the former four species, S. ignita (Poda, 1761) and S. zapekinae Bajkova, 1967 has sub-quadrate penes without prominent dorsal projections. The nymph of S. ignita has lateral hair-like setae on the caudal filaments, while the nymph of S. zapekinae lacks such setae but has pairs of tubercles on the head and pronotum. Some characters used in the generic delineation of the genera Ephemerella Walsh, 1862 and Serratella, such as nymphal maxillary palpi and hair-like setae on caudal filaments as well as features of the imaginal penes and forelegs, are varied in Chinese species. However, all species in this paper have bifurcate ventral lamellae of gill VI. Our work highlights a need for further comparative systematic study of the genera Serratella, Ephemerella, and another related genus Torleya Lestage, 1917.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Prophylactic Clipping After Colorectal Endoscopic Resection Prevents Bleeding of Large, Proximal Polyps: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials
    (Elsevier, 2020) Spadaccini, Marco; Albéniz, Eduardo; Pohl, Heiko; Maselli, Roberta; Chandrasekar, Viveksandeep Thoguluva; Correale, Loredana; Anderloni, Andrea; Carrara, Silvia; Fugazza, Alessandro; Badalamenti, Matteo; Iwatate, Mineo; Antonelli, Giulio; Enguita-Germán, Mónica; Álvarez, Marco Antonio; Sharma, Prateek; Rex, Douglas K.; Hassan, Cesare; Repici, Alessandro; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background & Aims The benefits of prophylactic clipping to prevent bleeding after polypectomy are unclear. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials to assess the efficacy of clipping in preventing bleeding after polypectomy, overall and according to polyp size and location. Methods We searched the Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases randomized trials that compared effects of clipping vs not clipping to prevent bleeding after polypectomy. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to generate pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs. Multilevel random-effects meta-regression analysis was used to combine data on bleeding after polypectomy and estimate associations between rates of bleeding and polyp characteristics. Results We analyzed data from 9 trials, comprising 7197 colorectal lesions (22.5% 20 mm or larger, 49.2% with proximal location). Clipping, compared with no clipping, did not significantly reduce the overall risk of post-polypectomy bleeding (2.2% with clipping vs 3.3% with no clipping; RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.45–1.08; P=.072). Clipping significantly reduced risk of bleeding after removal of polyps that were 20 mm or larger (4.3% had bleeding after clipping vs 7.6% had bleeding with no clipping; RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.33–0.78; P=.020) or that were in a proximal location (3.0% had bleeding after clipping vs 6.2% had bleeding with no clipping; RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35–0.81; P<.001). In multilevel meta-regression analysis that adjusted for polyp size and location, prophylactic clipping was significantly associated with reduced risk of bleeding after removal of large proximal polyps (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22–0.61; P=.021) but not small proximal lesions (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.48–1.62; P=0.581). Conclusions In a meta-analysis of randomized trials, we found that routine use of prophylactic clipping does not reduce risk of post-polypectomy bleeding, overall. However, clipping appeared to reduce bleeding after removal of large (more than 20 mm), proximal lesions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Right-Sided Location Not Associated With Missed Colorectal Adenomas in an Individual-Level Reanalysis of Tandem Colonoscopy Studies
    (Elsevier, 2019) Zimmermann-Fraedrich, Katharina; Sehner, Susanne; Rex, Douglas K.; Kaltenbach, Tonya; Soetniko, Roy; Wallace, Michael; Leung, Wai K.; Guo, Chuanguo; Gralnek, Ian M.; Brand, Eelco C.; Groth, Stefan; Schachschal, Guido; Ikematsu, Hiroaki; Siersema, Peter D.; Rösch, Thomas; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background & Aims Interval cancers occur more frequently in the right colon. One reason could be that right-sided adenomas are frequently missed in colonoscopy examinations. We reanalyzed data from tandem colonoscopies to assess adenoma miss rates in relation to location and other factors. Methods We pooled data from 8 randomized tandem trials comprising 2218 patients who had diagnostic or screening colonoscopies (adenomas detected in 49.8% of patients). We performed a mixed-effects logistic regression with patients as cluster effects with different independent parameters. Factors analyzed included location (left vs right, splenic flexure as cutoff), adenoma size, form, and histologic features. Analyses were controlled for potential confounding factors such as patient sex and age, colonoscopy indication, and bowel cleanliness. Results Right-side location was not an independent risk factor for missed adenomas (odds ratio [OR] compared with the left side, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75–1.17). However, compared with adenomas ≤5 mm, the OR for missing adenomas of 6–9 mm was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.44–0.87), and the OR for missing adenomas of ≥10 mm was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.33–0.77). Compared with pedunculated adenomas, sessile (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.16–2.85) and flat adenomas (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.49–4.10) were more likely to be missed. Histologic features were not significant risk factors for missed adenomas (OR for adenomas with high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.34–1.37 and OR for sessile serrated adenomas, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.47–1.64 compared with low-grade adenomas). Men had a higher number of adenomas per colonoscopy (1.27; 95% CI, 1.21–1.33) than women (0.86; 95% CI, 0.80–0.93). Men were less likely to have missed adenomas than women (OR for missed adenomas in men, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57–0.94). Conclusions In an analysis of data from 8 randomized trials, we found that right-side location of an adenoma does not increase its odds for being missed during colonoscopy but that adenoma size and histologic features do increase risk. Further studies are needed to determine why adenomas are more frequently missed during colonoscopies in women than men.