ArticleBMJ open gastroenterology2025
Patient experience of colon capsule endoscopy in clinical practice: a structured, comparative patient survey.
Article in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2025. 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.
- Patient-centered gastrointestinal function assessment technologies: a paradigm shift from traditional approaches to non-invasive innovations.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- Optimizing bowel preparation regimens for colon capsule endoscopy: an umbrella review (overview of systematic reviews).Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopyArticle
- Patient experiences of colon capsule endoscopy: a qualitative study.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveColon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a recognised diagnostic tool, but there is little research exploring patient experience of this relatively new technology. We aimed to understand the patient experience of CCE and explore similarities to and differences from colonoscopy and CT colonography (CTC).
methodsWe conducted a structured patient experience survey exploring preprocedural, procedural and postprocedural elements of CCE, alongside colonoscopy and CTC, using descriptive statistics. Consenting patients were recruited from the NHS England CCE pilot, referred either on a suspected colorectal cancer or a 3-year postpolypectomy surveillance pathway.
results927 of 1937 patients (48%) responded to the survey invitation. 486 had CCE as their index procedure, 399 colonoscopy and 42 CTC. Two per cent of CCE patients found the procedure painful compared with 21% of colonoscopy and 12% of CTC patients (p<0.001). The CCE procedural information was easily understood by 81% of patients compared with 92% having colonoscopy (p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the bowel preparation experience with 20% of CCE and 16% of colonoscopy patients experiencing severe or more discomfort (p=0.439). However, 19% of CCE patients felt the bowel preparation would put them off a future CCE compared with 8% of colonoscopy patients (p<0.001). This was not wholly explained by the need for further investigations. Using regression analysis, we found that high-quality preprocedural information, tolerability of bowel preparation, procedural comfort and investigative closure were predictors of patient satisfaction with CCE. 74% of patients were satisfied with CCE in diagnosing or reassuring them compared with 91% in colonoscopy and 80% in CTC (p<0.001).
conclusionsCCE was similarly or better tolerated than colonoscopy and CTC throughout the patient journey, with significantly less pain experienced. A future CCE clinical service should ensure that the patient is well informed and optimise the likelihood of the investigative closure.
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.