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.
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.
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.
Evaluation of Short Peptide Formula for Bowel Preparation in Video Capsule Endoscopy
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Randomized controlled trial of 3 days fasting and oral senna, combined with mannitol and simethicone, before capsule endoscopy.Medicine · 2017Trial
- Design of a Convolutional Neural Network as a Deep Learning Tool for the Automatic Classification of Small-Bowel Cleansing in Capsule Endoscopy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Inter/Intra-Observer Agreement in Video-Capsule Endoscopy: Are We Getting It All Wrong? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Semantic Segmentation Dataset for AI-Based Quantification of Clean Mucosa in Capsule Endoscopy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- Development and Verification of a Deep Learning Algorithm to Evaluate Small-Bowel Preparation Quality.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Development of a deep learning-based software for calculating cleansing score in small bowel capsule endoscopy.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Multi-criterion, automated, high-performance, rapid tool for assessing mucosal visualization quality of still images in small bowel capsule endoscopy.Endoscopy international open · 2019Article
- Development and validation of a computed assessment of cleansing score for evaluation of quality of small-bowel visualization in capsule endoscopy.Endoscopy international open · 2018Article
- Implications of small-bowel transit time in the detection rate of capsule endoscopy: A multivariable multicenter study of patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.World journal of gastroenterology · 2017Observational
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.