Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28567378›Full record

ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2017

Capsule retention: prevention, diagnosis and management.

Emanuele Rondonotti

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author.

Emanuele RondonottiGastroenterology Unit, Ospedale Valduce, Como, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Capsule retention (CR) has been defined as capsule remaining in the digestive tract for a minimum of two weeks. CR occurs approximately in 2% of all patients undergoing small bowel capsule endoscopy (CE). Prompt diagnosis of CR is important, as it has relevant clinical implications. CR should be suspected in (I) all asymptomatic patients who do not report capsule excretion within 15 days from capsule ingestion; and (II) patients with obstructive or perforation-related symptoms in which the capsule has not been excreted, regardless of the time between the onset of symptoms and capsule ingestion. Abdominal plain X-ray is the preferred test to confirm CR. An abdominal CT scan should be performed, on individual basis, if knowledge of the precise location of the retained capsule is necessary or whenever clinically indicated. Since CR is usually asymptomatic, an initial watchful monitoring is suggested. In inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients, a short course of medical therapy may allow capsule excretion. Nevertheless, in long-term CR, some cases of capsule fragmentation, acute obstruction and perforation have been described. Therefore, retrieval of the retained capsule is recommended if asymptomatic CR lasts for long time. A safe capsule retrieval is usually performed by endoscopy, whereas surgery remains a viable alternative if the first is unsuccessful or when clinically indicated. Either Patency Capsule

Indexed as

Capsule endoscopy (CE)capsule retention (CR)patency capsule (PC)

Identifiers

PMID28567378
PMCPMC5438794

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.