Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41567501›Full record

ArticleEndoscopy international open2026

Multicenter study of colon capsule endoscopy in post-polypectomy surveillance.

James Turvill, Monica Haritakis, Scott Pygall, Emily Bryant, Harriet Cox, Greg Forshaw, Crispin Musicha, Victoria Allgar, Robert Logan, Mark McAlindon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Endoscopy international open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

James TurvillGastroenterology, York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, York, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Monica HaritakisResearch and Innovation, York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, York, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Scott PygallImprovement Delivery, NHS England and NHS Improvement East of England, Welwyn Garden City, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Emily BryantNHS Cancer Programme, NHS England, Redditch, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Harriet CoxResearch and Innovation, York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, York, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Greg ForshawResearch and Innovation, York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, York, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Crispin MusichaMedical Statistics Group, Plymouth University, Plymouth, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Victoria AllgarMedical Statistics Group, Plymouth University, Plymouth, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Robert LoganDepartment of Gastroenterology, King's College London, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Mark McAlindonAcademic Unit of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-0985-3643

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and study aims: During the COVID-19 pandemic the National Health Service introduced colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) as an alternative to colonoscopy in patients awaiting 3-year post-polypectomy surveillance. We determined the safety, diagnostic accuracy, and utility of CCE in this clinical setting. Patients and methods: Consenting patients awaiting 3-year post-polypectomy surveillance underwent CCE or colonoscopy. For those having CCE, risk-based guidance was developed directing to: 1) immediate colorectal endoscopic intervention; 2) deferred intervention; or 3) discharge. The safety, comparative and paired diagnostic accuracy, and colonoscopy capacity spared by CCE were determined. Results: There were 464 CCE and 78 colonoscopy patients recruited. CCE patients were younger (mean 62 years versus 68 years). CCE was safely tolerated in 99% of patients. More ≥ 10 mm and 6- to 9-mm polyps were detected in the CCE cohort than the colonoscopy comparator cohort. This was on an intention to investigate basis and in those who had complete and adequately prepared examinations. Two hundred and five CCE patients had an urgent colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy and their paired findings were matched. Per patient sensitivities for ≥ 10 mm and 6- to 9-mm polyps were 92% and 90%, respectively. Two-thirds of patients entered a modified management pathway after CCE with 25% being discharged and 27% having a procedure deferral for up to 3 years. CCE completion and bowel preparation adequacy rates were 78% and 73% respectively. No colorectal cancer was detected. Conclusions: CCE is a safe diagnostic of colorectal polyps. In surveillance, its "filter function" complements existing colorectal diagnostic services by providing capacity and choice.

Indexed as

Colorectal cancerEndoscopy Lower GI TractPerformance and complicationsPolyps / adenomas / ...Quality and logistical aspects

Identifiers

PMID41567501
PMCPMC12817189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.