ArticleEndoscopy international open2025
Unifying terminology, reporting, and bowel preparation standards in colon capsule endoscopy: Nyborg Consensus.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Colon Capsule Endoscopy-Measured Colonic Transit Time Is Associated with Frailty in Older Adults.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Defining post-colon capsule endoscopy colorectal cancer (pCCECRC)-an International Capsule Endoscopy Research (iCARE) group consensus statement.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Flexible spectral imaging color enhancement in colon capsule endoscopy: Scoping review of evidence for lesion detection and characterization.Endoscopy international open · 2026Review
- Factors predicting conversion from colon capsule endoscopy to conventional optical endoscopy-findings from the CESCAIL study.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Urgency for standardized protocols to improve clinical implementation of artificial intelligence in endoscopic diagnostics.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is becoming increasingly popular in Europe. However, development of quality assurance and standardized terminology has not kept pace with clinical integration of this technology. As a result, there are significant variations in reporting standards, highlighting the need for a standardized terminology and framework. We used the RAND process to achieve a consensus of experts to determine the terminology in CCE, bowel cleansing assessment, and quality assurance reporting and future research priorities. Methods: A panel comprising 14 European CCE experts evaluated 45 statements during the international REFLECT symposium (Nyborg, Denmark) through three survey rounds and face-to-face and virtual discussions in the initial two rounds. Participants anonymously rated statement appropriateness. Results: Twenty-eight consensus statements were developed. Eight statements focus on consistent terminology for confirming CCE-detected polypoid and inflammatory colonic lesions with colonoscopy. To ensure standardization and quality assurance, 13 mandatory fields were recommended for inclusion in a CCE report. Three endorsed reporting methodologies were suggested, emphasizing prompt notification for suspected malignant findings, recommending a generic disclaimer regarding stomach and small bowel visualization intentions, and establishing reporting timelines at an interdepartmental level based on urgency. Four bowel preparation scale-related statements led to the recommendation to adoptithe Colon Capsule CLEansing Assessment and Reporting (CC-CLEAR) scale as the preferred scale. Conclusions: This study established a framework for terminology, reporting, and assessment of bowel cleansing for CCE. Future research should focus on optimizing bowel preparation regimens and exploring artificial intelligence applications in CCE.
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.