ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopy
Systematic meta-review: diagnostic accuracy of colon capsule endoscopy for colonic neoplasia with umbrella meta-analysis.
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Concordance Between Pan-Intestinal Capsule Endoscopy and Colonoscopy for the Detection and Characterization of Colonic Lesions: Post Hoc Analysis on the Impact of Colonic Transit Time.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- Flexible spectral imaging color enhancement in colon capsule endoscopy: Scoping review of evidence for lesion detection and characterization.Endoscopy international open · 2026Review
- Comment on Altobelli et al. Colon Capsule Endoscopy as a Promising Diagnostic Tool in Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence is rising globally, intensifying pressure on endoscopy services. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) offers a non-invasive alternative. Despite several systematic reviews showing reasonable polyp detection rates, clinical scepticism remains. Objectives: This meta-review and umbrella meta-analysis aim to synthesise evidence on CCE's diagnostic accuracy in polyp and CRC detection, using CT colonography or colonoscopy as the reference standard. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of EMBASE, MEDLINE and PubMed for systematic reviews evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of CCE in detecting polyps and CRC. A qualitative thematic review and synthesis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. A bivariate generalised linear mixed model with random effects was used for pooled diagnostic accuracy estimates, and meta-regression was performed using restricted maximum likelihood estimation. Results: Nine systematic reviews encompassing 28 unique studies (3472 participants) were included. For polyps of any size, the pooled per-patient sensitivity was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.69-0.86), specificity was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.71-0.82), and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.81. For polyps ⩾6 mm, sensitivity and specificity were 0.80 and 0.87 (AUC 0.81), and for polyps ⩾10 mm, 0.88 and 0.95 (AUC 0.95), respectively. Second-generation CCE (CCE2) improved diagnostic accuracy across all polyp sizes. For polyps of any size, CCE2 achieved a sensitivity of 0.90, specificity of 0.81 and AUC of 0.82. For polyps ⩾ 6 mm and ⩾10 mm, AUCs were 0.92 and 0.94, respectively. CCE2 showed high sensitivity for detecting any polyp size and polyps ⩾6 mm, with low heterogeneity ( Conclusion: CCE2 has high diagnostic accuracy for polyps and colorectal cancer detection. While technical challenges persist, CCE2 shows promise as a complementary diagnostic tool to help address the increasing demands for endoscopy services.
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.