ArticleTransplantation direct2016
Initial Experience of Video Capsule Endoscopy After Intestinal Transplantation.
Article in Transplantation direct, 2016. 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, 9 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntestinal transplantation is a procedure which inflicts immunological and infectious complications that affect the transplanted graft, posing both diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) offers easy access to the entire small intestine and presents itself as an interesting option. However, at present, no studies evaluating the usefulness of video capsule endoscopies in this setting have been published. Our aim was to evaluate the usefulness of VCE in detecting complications that arise after intestinal transplantation.
methodsWe included 7 adult patients with either isolated intestine (n = 1) or multivisceral grafts (n = 6). These patients underwent 12 VCE between 2004 and 2015 at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital. The median age was 42 (21-67) years (4 women/3 men). VCE was used in clinical situations where the conventional diagnostic methods failed to provide answers to the clinical question.
resultsIndications for the procedure were: suspicion of rejection (n = 4 examinations), gastrointestinal dysmotility (n = 4 examinations), high stomal output (n = 2 examinations), suspicion of lymphoproliferative disease in the transplanted graft (n = 1 examination), and clinical surveillance (n = 1 examination). The median time after transplantation for performing an examination was 740 (26-3059) days. VCE was useful in 83% of the examinations and the results influenced the planned management. The overall agreement between VCE findings and biopsies was moderate (κ = 0.54,
conclusionsVCE is a promising diagnostic method after intestinal transplantation. However, larger studies are needed to evaluate its potential risks and gains.
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.