ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2024
Bowel cleansing quality evaluation in colon capsule endoscopy: what is the reference standard?
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. It is linked to trial NCT04049357 (Colon Capsule Endoscopy in Bowel Cancer Screening. A Randomized Controlled Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Colon Capsule Endoscopy in Bowel Cancer Screening. A Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Follow-up endoscopy rates as an indicator of effectiveness in colon capsule endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2025Pooled it
- 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
- Article
- Optimizing bowel preparation regimens for colon capsule endoscopy: an umbrella review (overview of systematic reviews).Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The diagnostic accuracy of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) depends on a well-cleansed bowel. Evaluating the cleansing quality can be difficult with a substantial interobserver variation. Objectives: Our primary aim was to establish a standard of agreement for bowel cleansing in CCE based on evaluations by expert readers. Then, we aimed to investigate the interobserver agreement on bowel cleansing. Design: We conducted an interobserver agreement study on bowel cleansing quality. Methods: Readers with different experience levels in CCE and colonoscopy evaluated bowel cleansing quality on the Leighton-Rex scale and Colon Capsule CLEansing Assessment and Report (CC-CLEAR), respectively. All evaluations were reported on an image level. A total of 24 readers rated 500 images on each scale. Results: An expert opinion-based agreement standard could be set for poor and excellent cleansing but not for the spectrum in between, as the experts agreed on only a limited number of images representing fair and good cleansing. The overall interobserver agreement on the Leighton-Rex full scale was good (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.84, 95% CI (0.82-0.85)) and remained good when stratified by experience level. On the full CC-CLEAR scale, the overall agreement was moderate (ICC 0.62, 95% CI (0.59-0.65)) and remained so when stratified by experience level. Conclusion: The interobserver agreement was good for the Leighton-Rex scale and moderate for CC-CLEAR, irrespective of the reader's experience level. It was not possible to establish an expert-opinion standard of agreement for cleansing quality in CCE images. Dedicated training in using the scales may improve agreement and enable future algorithm calibration for artificial intelligence supported cleansing evaluation. Trial registration: All included images were derived from the CAREforCOLON 2015 trial (Registered with The Regional Health Research Ethics Committee (Registration number: S-20190100), the Danish data protection agency (Ref. 19/29858), and ClinicalTrials.gov (registration number: NCT04049357)).
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.