ArticleSaudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association
Evaluation of visualized area percentage assessment of cleansing score and computed assessment of cleansing score for capsule endoscopy.
Article in Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Randomized controlled trial of 3 days fasting and oral senna, combined with mannitol and simethicone, before capsule endoscopy.Medicine · 2017Trial
- Randomized controlled trial of cholestyramine and hydrotalcite to eliminate bile for capsule endoscopy.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology AssociationTrial
- Expected Values of Artificial Intelligence in Colon Capsule Endoscopy: Artificial Intelligence in Capsule Endoscopy Consortium Position Statement.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- A multi-label dataset and its evaluation for automated scoring system for cleanliness assessment in video capsule endoscopy.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2024Article
- Inter/Intra-Observer Agreement in Video-Capsule Endoscopy: Are We Getting It All Wrong? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- KODA score: an updated and validated bowel preparation scale for patients undergoing small bowel capsule endoscopy.Endoscopy international open · 2020Article
- Review of small-bowel cleansing scales in capsule endoscopy: A panoply of choices.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical significance of visualized area percentage assessment of cleansing score (AAC) and computed assessment of cleansing score (CAC) of these two small bowel cleanliness scores systems for capsule endoscopy (CE). MATERIALS AND
methodsThe reliability and consistency of the AAC and CAC scores were evaluated by comparing the scores by two examiners (one expert, one without any training in CE). Reliability was determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and consistency was determined using the kappa statistic.
resultsThe inter-observer agreement was excellent for both the AAC and CAC scores. For AAC, the ICC was 0.791 (95% confidence interval: 0.677-0.868), and for CAC the ICC was 1.000. Using 1.5 as the cutoff, there was no significant difference between AAC and CAC results by the expert examiner (kappa = 0.756, P = 0.000) or the non-expert examiner (kappa = 0.831, P = 0.000). Evaluation of small bowel cleanliness using AAC took 15-30 min, and evaluation using CAC took about 2-3 min. The overall adequacy assessment (OAA) using the AAC was not significantly different between the two examiners (χ2 = 0.586, P = 0.444). There were also no significant differences between the OAA using the AAC and the OAA using the CAC by the expert examiner (χ2 = 1.730, P = 0.188) or the non-expert examiner (χ2 = 1.124, P = 0.289).
conclusionBoth of these scores for assessment of small bowel cleanliness can be useful in clinical practice, but the CAC is simpler to use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.