ArticleEndoscopy international open2016
Video capsule endoscopy completion and total transit times are similar with oral or endoscopic delivery.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility, complications, and quality of visualization using video capsule endoscopy in 40 dogs with overt or questionable gastrointestinal bleeding.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2021Article
- Endoscopic Delivery Method Using a Retrieval Net for Patients with Small-Bowel Capsule Endoscopy Stagnation in the Stomach.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2021Article
- The Effect of Prucalopride on Small Bowel Transit Time in Hospitalized Patients Undergoing Capsule Endoscopy.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2017Article
- Contraindications for video capsule endoscopy.World journal of gastroenterology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
aimsVideo capsule endoscopy (VCE) is limited by incomplete procedures. There are also contraindications to the standard ingestion of the capsule that require endoscopic placement. Our aim was to compare the study completion rate of VCE after oral ingestion and endoscopic deployment. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe performed a review of all VCE from April 2010 through March 2013. Inpatient and outpatient cohorts grouped by the method of capsule delivery were formed and compared. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was utilized adjusting for variables with a P value ≤ 0.1 in group comparisons. Log-rank analysis was used to compare transit times.
resultsA total of 687 VCE were performed, including 316 inpatient (36 endoscopic deployment, 280 oral ingestion) and 371 outpatient (20 endoscopic deployment, 351 oral ingestion). For VCE on hospitalized patients, the completion rates were similar after endoscopic deployment and oral ingestion (72 % vs 73 %, P = 0.94). The completion rates were also similar for ambulatory patients (90 % vs 87 %, P = 0.69). There remained no difference after multivariable modeling for inpatients (P = 0.71) and outpatients (P = 0.46). Total transit times were not significantly different.
conclusionsVCE completion rates and total transit times are similar after oral or endoscopic deployment for both hospitalized and ambulatory patients. Endoscopic placement is effective in patients with contraindications to standard oral ingestion, but should otherwise be avoided to limit unnecessary procedural risks and costs.
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.