ArticleFrontiers in medical technology2022
Capsule endoscopy in Crohn's disease surveillance: A monocentric, retrospective analysis in Italy.
Article in Frontiers in medical technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Validation of a Model Estimating the Budget Impact of Video Capsule Endoscopy for Surveillance of Crohn's Disease in an Italian Center.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Crohn's disease (CD) is a potentially debilitating condition that burdens Italian healthcare substantially. The symptomatic management relies on prompt therapy adjustment to reduce flares and follow-up diagnostic inputs to maximise remission. Capsule endoscopy (CE) has introduced advantages in CD diagnostics, allowing the direct inspection of the entire gastrointestinal mucosa. The diagnostic procedure is comparable in effort to standard ileocolonoscopy (IC) but requires no anaesthesia. Whether CE follow-up improves clinical outcomes remains to be defined. Objectives: To provide a preliminary evaluation of CE in terms of clinical outcomes with respect to the standard of care ileocolonoscopy/MRE in Italy. Methods: This retrospective analysis utilises anonymised, monocentric data from the S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital IBD database in Bologna, Italy, collected between 1999 and 2019. Out of 421 adult patient records, 100 were included in the analysis (50 per arm, matched per demographic and clinical characteristics). The CE represented the intervention arm, whereas ileocolonoscopy/magnetic resonance enterography was the standard of care. The use of biologics, symptomatology course, and surgery were the outcomes. Results: The two techniques performed similarly overall. In general, no significant difference emerged in the use of biologics. The use of biologics appears reduced in the CE group, only in L4 patients after the first follow-up year. Similarly, surgery was seemingly less frequent among L4 patients in the CE group. No difference was found between groups in flare occurrence and duration. CE patients might have experienced longer and earlier first remissions, but no long-term difference persisted. Conclusions: The CE group showed an apparent reduction in biologics and surgery, limiting to L4 diagnoses. More extensive, prospective, multicentre, randomised studies must corroborate these preliminary findings.
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.