Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38883159›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2024

Rationalizing polyp matching criteria in colon capsule endoscopy: an international expert consensus through RAND (modified DELPHI) process.

Ian Io Lei, Anastasios Koulaouzidis, Gunnar Baatrup, Mark Samaan, Ioanna Parisi, Mark McAlindon, Ervin Toth, Aasma Shaukat, Ursula Valentiner, Konstantinos John Dabos and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Ian Io LeiInstitute of Precision Diagnostics and Translational Medicine, University Hospital of Coventry and Warwickshire, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry CV2 2DX, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6148-0963
Anastasios KoulaouzidisSurgical Research Unit, Odense University Hospital, Svendborg, Denmark.
Gunnar BaatrupSurgical Research Unit, Odense University Hospital, Svendborg, Denmark.
Mark SamaanInflammatory Bowel Disease Unit, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Ioanna ParisiDepartment of Gastroenterology, University College Hospital, London, UK.
Mark McAlindonAcademic Unit of Gastroenterology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Sheffield, UK.
Ervin TothDepartment of Gastroenterology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9314-9239
Aasma ShaukatDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, NY, USA.
Ursula ValentinerCorporate Health International, Inverness, UK.
Konstantinos John DabosGastroenterology Department, St John's Hospital, Livingston, UK.
Ignacio FernandezDepartment of Gastroenterology - CHN, Pamplona, Navarra, Spain.
Alexander RobertsonDepartment of Digestive Diseases, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK.
Benedicte Schelde-OlesenSurgical Research Unit, Odense University Hospital, Svendborg, Denmark.
Nicholas ParsonsWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
CESCAIL Core Group
Ramesh P ArasaradnamInstitute of Precision Diagnostics and Translational Medicine, University Hospital of Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has gained momentum as an alternative modality for the investigation of the lower gastrointestinal tract. Of the few challenges that remain, the comparison and - eventually - matching of polyps at different timestamps leads to the potential for double reporting and can contribute to false-positive findings and inaccuracies. With the impending artificial intelligence integration, the risk of double reporting the same polyp due to the lack of information on spatial orientation underscores the necessity for establishing criteria for polyp matching. Objectives: This RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (modified Delphi) process aims to identify the key factors or components used to match polyps within a CCE video. This involves exploring the attributes of each factor to create comprehensive polyp-matching criteria based on international expert consensus. Design: A systematic qualitative study using surveys. Methods: A panel of 11 international CCE experts convened to assess a survey comprised of 60 statements. Participants anonymously rated statement appropriateness on a 1-9 scale (1-3: inappropriate, 4-6: uncertain and 7-9: appropriate). Following a virtual group discussion of the Round 1 results, a Round 2 survey was developed and completed before the final analysis. Results: The factors that were agreed to be essential for polyp matching include (1) timestamp, (2) polyp localization, (3) polyp vascular pattern, (4) polyp size, (5) time interval of the polyp appearance between the green and yellow camera, (6) surrounding tissue, (7) polyp morphology and (8) polyp surface and contour. When five or more factors are satisfied, it was agreed that the comparing polyps are likely the same polyp. Conclusion: This study has established the first complete criteria for polyp matching in CCE. While it might not provide a definitive solution for matching difficult, small and common polyps, these criteria serve as a framework to guide and facilitate the process of polyp-matching.

Indexed as

capsule endoscopyCCEcolon capsule endoscopycolorectal cancercolorectal polyppolyppolyp matching

Identifiers

PMID38883159
PMCPMC11179528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.