SynthesisPloS one2016
Time Series Analysis of the Effectiveness and Safety of Capsule Endoscopy between the Premarketing and Postmarketing Settings: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Capsule retention: prevention, diagnosis and management.Annals of translational medicine · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical studies for assessing the effectiveness and safety in a premarketing setting are conducted under time and cost constraints. In recent years, postmarketing data analysis has been given more attention. However, to our knowledge, no studies have compared the effectiveness and the safety between the pre- and postmarketing settings. In this study, we aimed to investigate the importance of the postmarketing data analysis using clinical data. METHODS AND
findingsStudies on capsule endoscopy with rich clinical data in both pre- and postmarketing settings were selected for the analysis. For effectiveness, clinical studies published before October 10, 2015 comparing capsule endoscopy and conventional flexible endoscopy measuring the detection ratio of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding were selected (premarketing: 4 studies and postmarketing: 8 studies) from PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Web of Science. Among the 12 studies, 5 were blinded and 7 were non-blinded. A time series meta-analysis was conducted. Effectiveness (odds ratio) decreased in the postmarketing setting (premarketing: 5.19 [95% confidence interval: 3.07-8.76] vs. postmarketing: 1.48 [0.81-2.69]). The change in odds ratio was caused by the increase in the detection ratio with flexible endoscopy as the control group. The efficacy of capsule endoscopy did not change between pre- and postmarketing settings. Heterogeneity (I2) increased in the postmarketing setting because of one study. For safety, in terms of endoscope retention in the body, data from the approval summary and adverse event reports were analyzed. The incidence of retention decreased in the postmarketing setting (premarketing: 0.75% vs postmarketing: 0.095%). The introduction of the new patency capsule for checking the patency of the digestive tract might contribute to the decrease.
conclusionsEffectiveness and safety could change in the postmarketing setting. Therefore, time series meta-analyses could be useful to continuously monitor the effectiveness of medical device in clinical practices.
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.