Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30115115›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2018

The potential of computerised analysis of bowel sounds for diagnosis of gastrointestinal conditions: a systematic review.

Andrisha-Jade Inderjeeth, K Mary Webberley, Josephine Muir, Barry J Marshall

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Feeding intolerance.Early human development · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Automated Bowel Sound Analysis: An Overview.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
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

4 authors.

Andrisha-Jade InderjeethNorth Metropolitan Health Service, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia.
K Mary WebberleyThe Marshall Centre for Infectious Diseases Research and Training, School of Biomedical Sciences, QEII Medical Site, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. mary.webberley@uwa.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-0232-256X
Josephine MuirThe Marshall Centre for Infectious Diseases Research and Training, School of Biomedical Sciences, QEII Medical Site, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Barry J MarshallNorth Metropolitan Health Service, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGastrointestinal (GI) conditions are highly prevalent, and their standard diagnostic tests are costly and carry risks. There is a need for new, cost-effective, non-invasive tests. Our main objective was to assess the potential for use of bowel sounds computerised analysis in the diagnosis of GI conditions.

methodsThe systematic review followed the PRISMA requirements. Searches were made of four databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and IEEE Xplore) and the references of included papers. Studies of all types were included. The titles and abstracts were screened by one author. Full articles were reviewed and data collected by two authors independently. A third reviewer decided on inclusion in the event of disagreement. Bias and applicability were assessed via a QUADAS tool adapted to accommodate studies of multiple types.

resultsTwo thousand eight hundred eighty-four studies were retrieved; however, only 14 studies were included. Most of these simply assessed associations between a bowel sound feature and a condition. Four studies also included assessments of diagnostic accuracy. We found many significant associations between a bowel sound feature and a GI condition. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses revealed high sensitivity and specificity for an irritable bowel syndrome test, and a high negative predictive value for a test for post-operative ileus. Assessment of methodological quality identified weaknesses in all studies. We particularly noted a high risk of bias in patient selection. Because of the limited number of trials included and the variety in conditions, technology, and statistics, we were unable to conduct pooled analyses.

conclusionsDue to concerns over quality and small sample sizes, we cannot yet recommend an existing BSCA diagnostic test without additional studies. However, the preliminary results found in the included studies and the technological advances described in excluded studies indicate excellent future potential. Research combining sophistical clinical and engineering skills is likely to be fruitful. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The review protocol (review ID number 42016054028) was developed by three authors (AI, KMW, and JM) and was published in the PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews. It can be accessed from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ .

Indexed as

Diagnosis, Computer-AssistedDiagnostic Tests, RoutineAuscultationGastrointestinal DiseasesHumansBorborygmiBowel soundDiagnosticsGastrointestinal medicineNon-invasive testsResearch quality assessment methodology post-operative ileusSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30115115
PMCPMC6097214

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.