ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2023
Interobserver agreement on landmark and flexure identification in colon capsule endoscopy.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interobserver variability in colonoscopy quality assessment: a retrospective standardized multicenter video-based study.Archive of clinical cases · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Flexure and Landmark Identification Improves Reporting Completeness in Colonoscopy.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Expected Values of Artificial Intelligence in Colon Capsule Endoscopy: Artificial Intelligence in Capsule Endoscopy Consortium Position Statement.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Re-investigation rate following colon capsule endoscopy stratified by faecal haemoglobin concentration in a screening population.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Could artificial intelligence-powered colonoscopies change the future of colorectal cancer screening?World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Towards full integration of explainable artificial intelligence in colon capsule endoscopy's pathway.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Polyp Matching in Colon Capsule Endoscopy: Pioneering CCE-Colonoscopy Integration Towards an AI-Driven Future.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- The Diagnostic Accuracy of Colon Capsule Endoscopy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Rationalizing polyp matching criteria in colon capsule endoscopy: an international expert consensus through RAND (modified DELPHI) process.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWhen an optical colonoscopy is carried out, Scope Guide can assist the endoscopist in determining the localization. In colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), this support is not available. To our knowledge, the interobserver agreement on landmark identification has never been studied. This study aims to investigate the interobserver agreement on landmark identification in CCE.
methodsAn interobserver study was carried out comparing the landmark identification (the ileocecal valve, hepatic flexure, splenic flexure, and anus) in CCE investigations between an external private contractor and three in-house CCE readers with different levels of experience. All CCE investigations analyzed in this study were carried out as a part of the Danish screening program for colorectal cancer. Patients were between 50 and 74 years old with a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT). A random sample of 20 CCE investigations was taken from the total sample of more than 800 videos.
resultsOverall interobserver agreement on all landmarks was 51%. Interobserver agreement on the first cecal image (ileocecal valve), hepatic flexure, splenic flexure, and last rectal image (anus) was 72%, 29%, 22%, and 83%, respectively. The overall interobserver agreement, including only examinations with adequate bowel preparation (n = 16), was 54%, and for individual landmarks, 73%, 32%, 24%, and 85%.
conclusionOverall interobserver agreement on all four landmarks from CCE was poor. Measures are needed to improve landmark identification in CCE investigations. Artificial intelligence could be a possible solution to this problem.
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.