Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28567375›Full record

ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2017

Video capsule colonoscopy in routine clinical practice.

Ervin Toth, Diana E Yung, Artur Nemeth, Gabriele Wurm Johansson, Henrik Thorlacius, Anastasios Koulaouzidis

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Video Capsule Endoscopy in Gastroenterology.Gastroenterology research · 2022
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ervin TothDepartment of Gastroenterology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Diana E YungEndoscopy Unit, The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Artur NemethDepartment of Gastroenterology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Gabriele Wurm JohanssonDepartment of Gastroenterology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Henrik ThorlaciusDepartment of Surgery, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Anastasios KoulaouzidisDepartment of Gastroenterology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Skåne University Hospital · SEEdinburgh Royal Infirmary · GBLund University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColon capsule endoscopy (CCE) offers direct mucosal visualisation without sedation or gas insufflation required in conventional colonoscopy (CC). However, evidence for the role of CCE as an adjunct or alternative to CC remains equivocal. In this observational cohort study, we report our experience of using CCE to investigate patients with suspected colon pathology at a tertiary referral centre.

methodsFrom 2007-2015, consecutive patients requiring colonoscopy were recruited from a tertiary care centre in Malmo, Sweden. Data collected: patient demographics, indication for CCE, findings, bowel cleansing, colon transit time (CTT) and completeness of colon examination.

resultsSeventy-seven patients (57 F/20 F, median age 56 years) were included. The reason for CCE was previously incomplete or refused CC in 39 and 26 cases, and follow up of previous findings in 12 cases, respectively. The main clinical indications were gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (n=28; 36%) and suspected inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or follow-up of known IBD (n=23; 30%). CCE was complete in 58/77 (75%) patients. In 3 patients the colon was not reached; in the other 16, the capsule reached the rectum (n=4), sigmoid (n=6), descending colon (n=5) and transverse colon (n=1). Findings were: normal CCE (n=15; 19%) colonic diverticula (n=29; 38%), polyps (n=17; 22%), active IBD (n=12; 16%), haemorrhoids (n=8; 10%), colonic angioectasia (n=4; 5%) and cancer (n=1; 1%). Small-bowel findings were recorded in 8 (10%) patients. All patients tolerated bowel preparation and CCE well. Two patients with an ulcerated small-bowel stricture and cancer respectively experienced temporary capsule retention with spontaneous resolution.

conclusionsCCE is a well-tolerated alternative to CC, but requires technological improvement and optimisation of clinical practice to meet current reference standards. Although further technical development is required, CCE may complement or even replace CC for certain clinical indications.

Indexed as

capsule colonoscopyColon capsule endoscopy (CCE)colorectal cancer (CRC)gastrointestinal (GI) bleedinginflammatory bowel disease (IBD)

Identifiers

PMID28567375
PMCPMC5438790
OpenAlexW2610964657

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.