Background/Aims: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is associated with the development of cardiovascular disease. While existing studies have examined cardiac remodeling in NAFLD, there has been less emphasis on the development of carotid atherosclerosis and stroke. We sought to conduct a meta-analysis to quantify the prevalence, risk factors, and degree of risk increment of carotid atherosclerosis and stroke in NAFLD. Methods: Embase and Medline were searched for articles relating to NAFLD, carotid atherosclerosis, and stroke. Proportional data was analysed using a generalized linear mixed model. Pairwise meta-analysis was conducted to obtain odds ratio or weighted mean difference for comparison between patients with and without NAFLD. Results: From pooled analysis of 30 studies involving 7,951 patients with NAFLD, 35.02% (95% confidence interval [CI], 27.36–43.53%) had carotid atherosclerosis with an odds ratio of 3.20 (95% CI, 2.37–4.32; P<0.0001). Pooled analysis of 25,839 patients with NAFLD found the prevalence of stroke to be 5.04% (95% CI, 2.74–9.09%) with an odds ratio of 1.88 (95% CI, 1.23–2.88; P=0.02) compared to non-NAFLD. The degree of steatosis assessed by ultrasonography in NAFLD was closely associated with risk of carotid atherosclerosis and stroke. Older age significantly increased the risk of developing carotid atherosclerosis, but not stroke in NAFLD. Conclusions This meta-analysis shows that a stepwise increment of steatosis of NAFLD can significantly increase the risk of carotid atherosclerosis and stroke development in NAFLD. Patients more than a third sufferred from carotid atherosclerosis and routine assessment of carotid atherosclerosis is quintessential in NAFLD.

Background::Colonoscopy requires the intubation of the cecum for screening of colorectal diseases. The conventional position used for colonoscopy is the left lateral position (LLP). However, alternative positions have also been utilized to enhance the success of intubation. Thus, the aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of the different positions to determine the effectiveness of the individual positions for successful colonoscopy.Methods::Medline, Embase and Cochrane trials electronic databases were searched for studies on colonoscopy positions. The primary outcome was defined as the cecal intubation rate. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the rates of cecal intubation were estimated. Secondary outcomes such as the cecal intubation time and adenoma detection rate were further analyzed qualitatively.Results::After reviewing 644 identified records, 7 randomized control trials (RCT) studies were included. No significant difference was observed in either comparisons, between the LLP vs. supine position (SP) (RR = 1.01, 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.04, P = 0.55) or the LLP vs. prone position (PP) (RR = 1.02, 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.06, P = 0.27). Conclusions::Amidst available literature, the use of other positions can be considered when performing colonoscopy. These further highlights that the existential practice is based predominantly on familiarity instead of evidence-based-research.

Background::Colonoscopy requires the intubation of the cecum for screening of colorectal diseases. The conventional position used for colonoscopy is the left lateral position (LLP). However, alternative positions have also been utilized to enhance the success of intubation. Thus, the aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of the different positions to determine the effectiveness of the individual positions for successful colonoscopy.Methods::Medline, Embase and Cochrane trials electronic databases were searched for studies on colonoscopy positions. The primary outcome was defined as the cecal intubation rate. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the rates of cecal intubation were estimated. Secondary outcomes such as the cecal intubation time and adenoma detection rate were further analyzed qualitatively.Results::After reviewing 644 identified records, 7 randomized control trials (RCT) studies were included. No significant difference was observed in either comparisons, between the LLP vs. supine position (SP) (RR = 1.01, 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.04, P = 0.55) or the LLP vs. prone position (PP) (RR = 1.02, 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.06, P = 0.27). Conclusions::Amidst available literature, the use of other positions can be considered when performing colonoscopy. These further highlights that the existential practice is based predominantly on familiarity instead of evidence-based-research.