ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2015
Capsule Studies Performed in a Tertiary Care Center Versus Community Referrals Prior to Single-Balloon Enteroscopy: Does It Matter?
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsWithin the community, patients with positive capsule endoscopy (CE) are often referred to centers performing balloon-assisted enteroscopy. There is limited data evaluating the concordance and diagnostic/therapeutic yield of CE performed in the community versus CE conducted at institutions experienced with enteroscopy. The primary aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the concordance between CE and SBE after CE was performed either in the community or at our tertiary care center.
methodsA total of 141 patients were analyzed after selecting patients undergoing evaluation of obscure GI bleeding from January 2010 to May 2014. Forty-seven CE were performed inside and the remaining 94 CE were performed at outside institutions prior to single-balloon enteroscopy at our institution. Agreement beyond chance was evaluated using kappa coefficient. A p value <5% was considered significant.
resultsThe most frequent findings on CE were vascular lesions in 39 patients (41.5%) within the referral group and 23 within inside patients (48.9%), followed by active bleeding/clots in 23 patients (24.5%) and in 14 patients (29.8%) respectively. There was a fair degree of concordance in the referral group for vascular lesions 0.23 (0.03-0.42) compared to a good degree in the inside group 0.65 (0.44-0.87). Fair agreement was found looking at ulcers within the referral group 0.29 (0.06-0.65) compared to a moderate agreement in the inside group 0.55 (0.17-0.94).
conclusionsDegree of concordance for vascular lesions and ulcers was significantly higher for patients undergoing CE at our institution compared to those referred from the community. Patients referred to tertiary care centers for balloon-assisted enteroscopy may benefit from advanced endoscopists re-reading the capsule findings or even potentially repeating CE in hemodynamically stable patients if the study is not available.
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.