ArticleUnited European gastroenterology journal2017
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of nurses in small bowel capsule endoscopy reading.
Article in United European gastroenterology journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emotional Intelligence as Critical Competence in Nurses' Work Performance: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Inter/Intra-Observer Agreement in Video-Capsule Endoscopy: Are We Getting It All Wrong? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Development and Validation of an Artificial Intelligence Model for Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy Video Review.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Training pathway for small bowel capsule endoscopy in the UK.Frontline gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Performance in Colon Capsule Endoscopy Reading by Endoscopy Nurses.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2021Article
- Optimising the performance and interpretation of small bowel capsule endoscopy.Frontline gastroenterology · 2018Review
- How should we do colon capsule endoscopy reading: a practical guide.Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIncreasing demands on healthcare systems mean that nurses are taking on more roles as physician extenders. Capsule endoscopy (CE) is a laborious procedure where specialist nurses could reduce physician workload and rationalise resource utilisation. The aim of this review and meta-analysis is to consolidate data on nurses' performance in small bowel CE (SBCE). MATERIALS AND
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted for randomised controlled trials and comparative studies on nurses in SBCE reading compared to physicians. We examined the performance of nurses compared to SBCE-trained physicians.
resultsSixteen relevant studies were identified, with 820 SBCE examinations involving 20 nurses. 11/16 studies reported the numbers of SBCE findings detected. Overall, the pooled proportion of all findings reported by physicians and nurses was 86%. Studies involving nurses with endoscopic experience showed a summative detection rate of 89%. 7/16 studies reported the number of videos where there was agreement between the nurse and physicians for overall findings/diagnosis. The overall proportion of videos with agreement was 68%. In studies where nurses had endoscopy experience, the proportion of videos with agreement was 71%.
conclusionOur meta-analysis supports a more active role for nurses in SBCE reading. We suggest nurses can function as independent CE readers in general, given adequate training and formal credentialing.
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.