Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22065113›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2012

Capsule endoscopy: comparison of two different reading modes.

Ute Günther, Severin Daum, Martin Zeitz, Christian Bojarski

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. What defines quality in small bowel capsule endoscopy.Annals of translational medicine · 2018
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Capsule endoscopy of the small bowel.Annals of translational medicine · 2016
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. The role of capsule endoscopy in acute gastrointestinal bleeding.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2014
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ute GüntherMedical Clinic I Gastroenterology, Infectious Diseases, Rheumatology, Charité - Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12200, Berlin, Germany. ute.guenther@charite.de
Severin Daum
Martin Zeitz
Christian Bojarski

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCapsule endoscopy (CE) is a very useful tool for the evaluation of the small intestine, but it is time consuming. The aim of this study was to compare evaluation times and detection rates in two different reading modes (single view at a speed of 10 frames per second (fps) and four images simultaneously, i.e., quadview mode at a speed of 20 fps) to find the optimum setting mode for evaluation of CE videos.

methodsCE videos of 70 patients performed for different indications (obscure bleeding, n = 50; suspected Crohn's disease, n = 10; and suspected or complicated celiac disease, n = 10) were reviewed by investigators A and B in the two different reading modes.

resultsThe mean evaluation time using single view at 10 fps was 22 min (SD ± 9.1 min) and 11.9 min (SD ± 4.8 min) using quadview mode at 20 fps. The detection rates of angiodysplasias, erosions, small ulcers, and small polyps were only discreetly lower using the quadview mode at 20 fps. In Crohn's disease and celiac disease, the essential aspects of inflamed or atrophic mucosa segments were equally detected in both reading modes. In one case of complicated celiac disease with severe erosive jejunitis, a lymphoma-suspect lesion was overlooked in the quadview mode at 20 fps.

conclusionsIt is often possible to read CE videos in quadview mode at a higher speed with even so a high diagnostic yield in a shortened evaluation time.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCapsule EndoscopyFemaleHumansMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID22065113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.