ReviewCureus2021
Diagnostic Accuracy for Per-Patient Polyp Detection of Second-Generation Capsule Endoscopy Compared to Colonoscopy: A Meta-Analysis of Multicenter Studies.
Review in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- PillCam COLON 2 for investigation of the colon through direct visualisation: systematic review and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Trial
- Multicenter study of colon capsule endoscopy in post-polypectomy surveillance.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Article
- Multicentre Study of 10,369 Symptomatic Patients Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy of Colon Capsule Endoscopy, Colonoscopy and CT Colonography.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Colon Capsule Utilisation in Europe-CAPTURE EU Survey Findings.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Clinical utility of colon capsule endoscopy: a moving target?Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Low Colon Capsule Endoscopy (CCE) False Negative Rate for Polyps Excluding Reader Error.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Castor Oil in Bowel Preparation Regimens for Colon Capsule Endoscopy: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Colon Capsule Endoscopy in the Diagnosis of Colon Polyps: Who Needs a Colonoscopy?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Optimizing bowel preparation regimens for colon capsule endoscopy: an umbrella review (overview of systematic reviews).Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopyArticle
- Systematic meta-review: diagnostic accuracy of colon capsule endoscopy for colonic neoplasia with umbrella meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) or capsule colonoscopy can be used as colorectal cancer (CRC) screening option. We intended to analyze the concerning literature that compared second-generation CCE to standard colonoscopy for multicenter studies only. A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Study characteristics related to our research including sensitivity and specificity for per-patient polyps detection (size: ≥ 10 mm and ≥ 6 mm). Meta-analysis was performed using an open meta-analyst. Our research included five studies, involving a total of 1518 patients, with a total of 1305 analyzed patients. The adequate bowel preparation rate ranged from 70% to 90%. The rates of complete CCE transit fluctuated from 80% to 100%. Our meta-analysis illustrated that mean (95% confidence interval) per-patient sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were: 0.86 (0.82-0.91) (p < 0.001), 0.88 (0.72-0.96) (p < 0.001), and 50.7 (18.5-138.9) (p < 0.001), respectively, for polyps ≥ 6 mm; and 0.86 (0.8-0.91) (p < 0.001), 0.96 (0.92-0.98) (p < 0.001), and 173.5 (98.4-305.8) (p < 0.001), respectively, for polyps ≥ 10 mm. We concluded that CCE had high sensitivity and specificity for per-patient polyps vs. standard colonoscopy. Nevertheless, the comparatively higher rate of unfinished CCEs limits the utilization of CCE for CRC screening.
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.