Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34935278›Full record

Observational studyColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland2022

ScotCap - A large observational cohort study.

Campbell MacLeod, Jemma Hudson, Michelle Brogan, Seonaidh Cotton, Shaun Treweek, Graeme MacLennan, Angus J M Watson

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06475560 (Camera Capsule Endoscopy in the Routine Diagnostic Pathway for Colorectal Diseases), which is not on this map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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.

NCT06475560 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Camera Capsule Endoscopy in the Routine Diagnostic Pathway for Colorectal Diseases

TypeinterventionalSponsorOdense University HospitalRan2024 to 2026Enrolled800ConditionsColorectal CancerArmsCCE arm, CC arm
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Campbell MacLeodDepartment of Surgery, Raigmore Hospital, Inverness, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9161-0661
Jemma HudsonHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Michelle BroganDigital Health and Care Innovation Centre, Glasgow, UK.
Seonaidh CottonHealth Services Research Unit, The Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Shaun TreweekHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Graeme MacLennanHealth Services Research Unit, The Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Angus J M WatsonDepartment of Surgery, Raigmore Hospital, Inverness, UK.
University of Aberdeen · GBRaigmore Hospital · GBNHS Digital · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aim of this work was to evaluate the performance of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) in a lower gastrointestinal diagnostic care pathway.

methodThis large multicentre prospective clinical evaluation recruited symptomatic patients (patients requiring investigation of symptoms suggestive of colorectal pathology) and surveillance patients (patients due to undergo surveillance colonoscopy). Patients aged 18 years or over were invited to participate and undergo CCE by a secondary-care clinician if they met the referral criteria for a colonoscopy. The primary outcome was the test completion rate (visualization of the whole colon and rectum). We also measured the need for further tests after CCE.

resultsA total of 733 patients were invited to take part in this evaluation, with 509 patients undergoing CCE. Of these, 316 were symptomatic patients and 193 were surveillance patients. Two hundred and twenty-eight of the 316 symptomatic patients (72%) and 137 of the 193 surveillance patients (71%) had a complete test. It was found that 118/316 (37%) of symptomatic patients required no further test following CCE, while 103/316 (33%) and 81/316 (26%) required a colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy, respectively. Fifty-three of the 193 surveillance patients (28%) required no further test following CCE, while 104/193 (54%) and 30/193 (16%) required a colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy, respectively. No patient in this evaluation was diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Two patients experienced serious adverse events - one capsule retention with obstruction and one hospital admission with dehydration due to the bowel preparation.

conclusionCCE is a safe, well-tolerated diagnostic test which can reduce the proportion of patients requiring colonoscopy, but the test completion rate needs to be improved to match that of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Indexed as

Capsule EndoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsCohort StudiesColonoscopyHumansProspective Studiescolon capsule endoscopycolorectal polypsfaecal immunochemistry testinginnovationlower gastrointestinal diagnostics

Identifiers

PMID34935278
PMCPMC9305214
OpenAlexW4200104196

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.