ArticleGastroenterology research and practice2015
Beneficial effects of combining computed tomography enteroclysis/enterography with capsule endoscopy for screening tumor lesions in the small intestine.
Article in Gastroenterology research and practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim. To compare the efficacy of using computed tomography enteroclysis/enterography (CTE), capsule endoscopy (CE), and CTE with CE for diagnosing tumor lesions in the small intestine. Materials and Methods. We included 98 patients who underwent CE during the observation period and were subjected to CTE at our hospital from April 2008 to May 2014. Results. CTE had a significantly higher sensitivity than CE (84.6% versus 46.2%, P = 0.039), but there were no significant differences in specificity, positive or negative predictive values, or diagnostic accuracy rates. The sensitivity of CTE/CE was 100%, again significantly higher than that of CE (P = 0.002). The difference in specificity between CTE/CE and CE was not significant, but there were significant differences in positive predictive values (100% for CTE/CE versus 66.7% for CE, P = 0.012), negative predictive values (100% versus 92.1%, P = 0.008), and diagnostic accuracy rate (100% versus 89.8%, P = 0.001). The diagnostic accuracy rate was also significantly higher in CTE/CE versus CTE (100% versus 95.9%, P = 0.043). Conclusion. Our findings suggested that a combination of CTE and CE was useful for screening tumor lesions in the small intestine. This trial is registered with number UMIN000016154.
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.