ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Low Colon Capsule Endoscopy (CCE) False Negative Rate for Polyps Excluding Reader Error.
Article 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- PillCam COLON 2 for investigation of the colon through direct visualisation: systematic review and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Multicenter study of colon capsule endoscopy in post-polypectomy surveillance.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Polyp Matching in Colon Capsule Endoscopy: Pioneering CCE-Colonoscopy Integration Towards an AI-Driven Future.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Clinical Prediction Models to Guide the Selection of Patients for Colon Capsule Endoscopy Versus Colonoscopy Following FIT-Positive Screening.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCCE is a diagnostic tool lacking clinical data on false negative rates. We aimed to assess this rate and the reader/technical error breakdown.
methodsFalse negative CCEs were identified after comparing to a colonoscopy database. Missed pathology characteristics and study indications/quality were collated. Cases were re-read by experts and newly identified lesions/pathologies were verified by an expert panel and categorised as reader/technical errors.
resultsOf 532 CCEs, 203 had an adequately reported comparative colonoscopy, 45 (22.2%) had missed polyps, and 26/45 (57.8%) reached the colonic section with missed pathology. Of the cases, 22 (84.6%) had adequate bowel preparation. Indications included 13 (50%) polyp surveillance, 12 (46%) GI symptoms, 1 (4%) polyp screening. CCE missed 18 (69.2%) diminutive polyps and 8 (30.8%) polyps ≥ 6 mm, 18/26 (69.2%) of these were adenomas. Excluding incomplete CCE correlates, colonoscopy total and significant polyp yield were 97/184 (52.7%) and 50/97 (51.5%), respectively. CCE total polyp and significant polyp false negative rate was 26.8% (26/97) and 16% (8/50), respectively. Following re-reading, reader and technical error was 20/26 (76.9%) and 6/26 (23.1%). Total and significant missed polyp rates were 20.6% (20/97) and 14% (7/50) for reader error, 6.2% (6/97) and 2% (1/50) for technical error.
conclusionsFalse negative CCE rate is not insubstantial and should be factored into clinical decision making.
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.