ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Inter/Intra-Observer Agreement in Video-Capsule Endoscopy: Are We Getting It All Wrong? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Open-Source Artificial Intelligence in Small-Bowel Capsule Endoscopy-Visual Assistance is Promising, But Not Yet a Standard of Care.DEN open · 2027Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Gastrointestinal Wireless Capsule Endoscopy: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in the management of inflammatory bowel disease: What's next?World journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- AI-Assisted Double-Headed Capsule Endoscopy: Multicentre Prospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study Across Small Bowel Indications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Re-investigation rate following colon capsule endoscopy stratified by faecal haemoglobin concentration in a screening population.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Automatic Evaluation of Small Bowel Cleanliness in Capsule Endoscopy: A Comparative Study of Four Preparations using Artificial Intelligence.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Size, morphology, site, and access scoring variability as a barrier to standardization and automation.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Article
- AI-Assisted Evaluation of Colon Cleanliness in Capsule Endoscopy Videos.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Multicentre Study of 10,369 Symptomatic Patients Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy of Colon Capsule Endoscopy, Colonoscopy and CT Colonography.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2025Article
- Unmet Needs of Artificial Intelligence in Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Conventional small-bowel capsule endoscopy reading vs proprietary artificial intelligence auxiliary systems: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2025Review
- The professional background of a referring physician predicts the diagnostic yield of small bowel capsule endoscopy in suspected small bowel bleeding.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Bowel cleansing quality evaluation in colon capsule endoscopy: what is the reference standard?Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Robotic Colonoscopy and Beyond: Insights into Modern Lower Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Interobserver agreement between an artificial intelligence algorithm and colon capsule endoscopy readers on bowel-cleansing quality.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2023Article
- Article
- Navigating celiac disease with small bowel capsule endoscopy: current state and future horizons.Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopyReview
- Optimizing bowel preparation regimens for colon capsule endoscopy: an umbrella review (overview of systematic reviews).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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Video-capsule endoscopy (VCE) reading is a time- and energy-consuming task. Agreement on findings between readers (either different or the same) is a crucial point for increasing performance and providing valid reports. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to provide an evaluation of inter/intra-observer agreement in VCE reading. A systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science was performed throughout September 2022. The degree of observer agreement, expressed with different test statistics, was extracted. As different statistics are not directly comparable, our analyses were stratified by type of test statistics, dividing them in groups of "None/Poor/Minimal", "Moderate/Weak/Fair", "Good/Excellent/Strong" and "Perfect/Almost perfect" to report the proportions of each. In total, 60 studies were included in the analysis, with a total of 579 comparisons. The quality of included studies, assessed with the MINORS score, was sufficient in 52/60 studies. The most common test statistics were the Kappa statistics for categorical outcomes (424 comparisons) and the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for continuous outcomes (73 comparisons). In the overall comparison of inter-observer agreement, only 23% were evaluated as "good" or "perfect"; for intra-observer agreement, this was the case in 36%. Sources of heterogeneity (high, I
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.