Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27195129›Full record

ArticleBMJ open gastroenterology2016

Initial US evaluation of second-generation capsule colonoscopy for detecting colon polyps.

Douglas R Morgan, Pramod R Malik, David P Romeo, Douglas K Rex

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01087528 (Evaluation of PillCam™ Colon 2 in Visualization of the Colon), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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.

NCT01087528 nacompletednot on this map

Evaluation of PillCam™ Colon 2 in Visualization of the Colon

TypeinterventionalSponsorMedtronic - MITGRan2009 to 2010Enrolled51ConditionsColonic Diseases, Bowel DiseasesArmsPillCam™ (Capsule Endoscopy) Colon 2 capsule
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Second-generation capsule endoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps: An updated systematic review and comparative meta-analysis of prospective studies.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Colon Capsule Endoscopy: Review and Perspectives.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2016
    Review
  10. Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Douglas R MorganDepartment of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition , Vanderbilt Institute for Global Health, Vanderbilt University , Nashville, Tennessee , USA.
Pramod R MalikGastroenterology Associates of Tidewater, P.C , Virginia Gastroenterology Institute , Suffolk, Virginia , USA.
David P RomeoDayton Gastroenterology, Inc. , Beavercreek, Ohio , USA.
Douglas K RexDepartment of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology/Hepatology , Indiana University Hospital , Indianapolis, Indiana , USA.
Dayton Clinical Oncology Program · USIndiana University Hospital · USVanderbilt Health · USVirginia Gastroenterology Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCapsule colonoscopy is an additional screening modality for colorectal cancer. Second-generation capsule colonoscopy (CC2) may have improved efficacy in the detection of colon adenomas as compared with prior devices. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of CC2 in the detection of polyps in symptomatic and screening patients in the USA.

designProspective, multicentre study. SETTING AND

participantsTwo academic medical centres and two private practice facilities, evaluating patients with indications for colonoscopy.

methodsPatients underwent capsule colonoscopy procedure using magnesium citrate as a boost, followed by colonoscopy on the same day. The main outcome measurement was accuracy of CC2 for the detection of colorectal polyps ≥6 and ≥10 mm as compared with conventional colonoscopy.

results51 patients were enrolled, 50 of whom had CC2 and colonoscopy examinations and were included in the accuracy analysis. 30% and 14% of patients had polyps ≥6 and ≥10 mm, respectively. For lesions ≥10 mm identified on conventional colonoscopy, CC2 sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 56.1% to 100%) with a specificity of 93.0% (79.9% to 98.2%). For polyps ≥6 mm, the CC2 sensitivity was 93.3% (66.0% to 99.7%) and the specificity was 80.0% (62.5% to 90.9%). There was a 61% adequate cleansing rate with 64% of CC2 procedures being complete.

conclusionsIn the initial US experience with CC2 there was adequate sensitivity for detecting patients with polyps ≥6 mm in size. Magnesium citrate was inadequate as a boost agent. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01087528.

Indexed as

COLONIC ADENOMASCOLONIC POLYPSCOLONOSCOPYGASTROINTESINAL ENDOSCOPY

Identifiers

PMID27195129
PMCPMC4860721
OpenAlexW2345923021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.