Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26134966›Full record

ArticleEndoscopy international open2014

Analysis of a grading system to assess the quality of small-bowel preparation for capsule endoscopy: in search of the Holy Grail.

Jatinder Goyal, Anshum Goel, Gerald McGwin, Frederick Weber

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Endoscopy international open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03742934 (Evaluation of Short Peptide Formula for Bowel Preparation in Video Capsule Endoscopy), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT03742934 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Evaluation of Short Peptide Formula for Bowel Preparation in Video Capsule Endoscopy

TypeinterventionalSponsorChildren's Hospital of Fudan UniversityRan2019 to 2019Enrolled210ConditionsCapsule Endoscopy, Pediatric DisorderArmsShort peptide, Liquid diet
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. 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.

Jatinder GoyalDepartment of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Anshum GoelDepartment of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Gerald McGwinDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA ; Department of Gastroenterology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Frederick WeberDepartment of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA ; Department of Gastroenterology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy is vulnerable to inadequate visualization related to residual bile or chyme remaining in the lumen despite intestinal lavage. It has been challenging to determine the optimal lavage preparation of the bowel and patient diet before capsule endoscopy, as well as the timing of the procedure, because no well-accepted, validated grading system for assessing the quality of intestinal lavage before capsule endoscopy is available. There remains no consensus on the reliability of qualitative, quantitative, or computer-derived assessments of the quality of preparation for capsule endoscopy. This study evaluates intra-observer and interobserver agreement for a previously validated scale. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe digital images of 34 patients who underwent capsule endoscopy were independently reviewed by two blinded physicians according to a previously validated grading scale. One of the physicians reviewed and graded the patients a second time. The quality of the bowel luminal preparation was assessed with a qualitative parameter (fluid transparency) and a more quantitative parameter (mucosal invisibility) for each of three small-intestinal segments, and an overall small-bowel score for each parameter was assigned as well. A weighted kappa coefficient was used to calculate intra-observer (observer 1A and 1B) and interobserver (observer 1A and observer 2) agreement. A kappa value of 0.60 or more suggests strong agreement, 0.40 to 0.60 moderate agreement, and less than 0.40 poor agreement.

resultsThe intra-observer weighted kappa index for both fluid transparency and mucosal visibility was 0.52, which is consistent with moderate agreement. The interobserver weighted kappa indices for fluid transparency and mucosal invisibility were 0.29 and 0.42, respectively, demonstrating suboptimal interobserver agreement. The individual segment interobserver kappa indices were better for mucosal visibility (0.52, 0.39, and 0.47 for small-bowel segments 1, 2, and 3, respectively) than for fluid transparency (0.18, 0.38, and 0.31).

conclusionsThe proposed grading scale for assessing the quality of preparation for capsule endoscopy has inadequate interobserver and intra-observer agreement. Capsule endoscopy preparation grading scales that focus more on quantitative than on qualitative assessment may demonstrate more reliable performance characteristics. Optimizing the quality of preparation and diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy will first require the development of a well-validated grading scale.

Identifiers

PMID26134966
PMCPMC4423294

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.