Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29868628›Full record

ArticleEndoscopy international open2018

Development and validation of a computed assessment of cleansing score for evaluation of quality of small-bowel visualization in capsule endoscopy.

Einas Abou Ali, Aymeric Histace, Marine Camus, Rafaële Gerometta, Aymeric Becq, Olivia Pietri, Isabelle Nion-Larmurier, Cynthia Li, Ulriikka Chaput, Philippe Marteau and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Endoscopy international open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Role of Artificial Intelligence in Video Capsule Endoscopy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Einas Abou AliSaint-Antoine Hospital, AP-HP, Department of Hepatogastroenterology, 184 rue du Faubourg Saint Antoine, 75012, Paris, France.
Aymeric HistaceETIS UMR 8051, University Paris-Seine, University of Cergy-Pontoise, ENSEA, CNRS, Cergy, France.
Marine CamusSaint-Antoine Hospital, AP-HP, Department of Hepatogastroenterology, 184 rue du Faubourg Saint Antoine, 75012, Paris, France.
Rafaële GeromettaSaint Joseph Hospital, Paris, France.
Aymeric BecqSaint-Antoine Hospital, AP-HP, Department of Hepatogastroenterology, 184 rue du Faubourg Saint Antoine, 75012, Paris, France.
Olivia PietriSaint-Antoine Hospital, AP-HP, Department of Hepatogastroenterology, 184 rue du Faubourg Saint Antoine, 75012, Paris, France.
Isabelle Nion-LarmurierSaint-Antoine Hospital, AP-HP, Department of Hepatogastroenterology, 184 rue du Faubourg Saint Antoine, 75012, Paris, France.
Cynthia LiSaint-Antoine Hospital, AP-HP, Department of Hepatogastroenterology, 184 rue du Faubourg Saint Antoine, 75012, Paris, France.
Ulriikka ChaputSaint-Antoine Hospital, AP-HP, Department of Hepatogastroenterology, 184 rue du Faubourg Saint Antoine, 75012, Paris, France.
Philippe MarteauSaint-Antoine Hospital, AP-HP, Department of Hepatogastroenterology, 184 rue du Faubourg Saint Antoine, 75012, Paris, France.
Christian FlorentSaint-Antoine Hospital, AP-HP, Department of Hepatogastroenterology, 184 rue du Faubourg Saint Antoine, 75012, Paris, France.
Xavier DraySaint-Antoine Hospital, AP-HP, Department of Hepatogastroenterology, 184 rue du Faubourg Saint Antoine, 75012, Paris, France.
Sorbonne Université · FRCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY

aimsAn objective and reliable scoring system is needed to assess quality of visualization in small bowel (SB) capsule endoscopy (CE), for both clinical practice and research purposes. The aim of this study was to establish and to validate a SB-computed assessment of cleansing (SB-CAC) score. PATIENTS AND

methodsThirty-three SB-CE were selected. A CAC score, defined as the ratio of the red over green pixels (R/G ratio), was calculated for each frame. Intervals were then determined, ranging from the lowest to the highest ratio among the extracted frames. Twelve frames were randomly selected in each of these intervals. Two hundred eighty-eight frames were shuffled and analyzed twice in random order by two experienced CE readers who were blinded to the CAC scores. Once an "adequately cleansed" or "inadequately cleansed" qualification was allotted to every still frame, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was created. In case of discrepancy between the two readers, the still frames were excluded. A second dataset of 288 different SB still frames was generated and read twice in random order by two other experienced SB-CE readers, using the same methodology.

resultsA SB-CAC score threshold of 1.6 best achieved discrimination of adequately from inadequately cleansed frames, with a sensitivity of 92.7 % (95 %CI [89.7 - 95.8]) and a specificity of 92.9 % (95 %CI [89.9 - 95.9]). This threshold was validated using the second dataset, yielding the following performances: sensitivity 91.3 % (95 %CI [87.9 - 94.6]), specificity 94.7 % (95 %CI [92.1 - 97.3]).

conclusionAn SB-CAC score of 1.6 has the highest sensitivity and specificity to discriminate "adequately cleansed" from "inadequately cleansed" SB-CE still frames. This constitutes an objective, reproducible, reliable, and automated cleansing score for SB-CE.

Identifiers

PMID29868628
PMCPMC5979189
OpenAlexW2784394945

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.