ArticleBMC gastroenterology2023
Magnetic-controlled capsule endoscopy performance in aging patients.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2023. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Novel advances following the integration of Baveno VII consensus definitions for the non-invasive testing of portal hypertension].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2026Review
- Fluid-structure dynamics of a vibro-impact capsule robot in multiphase intestinal environments.Nonlinear dynamics · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThe increasing elderly population and wide use of magnetic capsule endoscopy (MCE) have led to more attention to elderly patients.
aimThe aim of this study was to assess the performance (including transit time, cleanliness score, positive findings and safety) of MCE in aging patients (≥ 60 years), especially patients over 80 years old.
methodsConsecutive patients of ≥ 60 years undergoing MCE at our center from August 2017 to August 2022 were classified into the oldest (≥ 80 years) and the older (60-79 years) groups. Esophageal transit time (ETT), gastric examination time (GET), small bowel transit time (SITT), and the quality of gastric preparation were compared. Information on examination indications, subjective discomforts, adverse events, and MCE outcomes were compared.
resultsOf 293 enrolled patients, 128 patients were in the oldest group and 165 patients were in the older group. ETT and GET were longer in the oldest group, whereas SITT was slightly longer in the oldest patients. Visualization scores were significantly lower in the body and antrum in the oldest patients. The total visualization score was lower in the older group compared with the oldest group; however, the difference was not significant. Cleanliness scores at the fundus and antrum and total cleanliness scores were lower in the oldest patients compared with the older patients. Positive findings and ulcers and erosions in the small intestine were more common in the oldest group. One patient had nausea during the gastric examination. Capsule retention in the cecum occurred in one case.
conclusionMCE was feasible and safe for aging patients. ETT and GET were markedly longer and gastric cleanliness and visualization were worse, while overall small intestine-positive findings were higher in the oldest patients compared with the older patients.
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.