ArticleEndoscopy international open2026
Multicenter study of colon capsule endoscopy in post-polypectomy surveillance.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Letter: Assessing the True Filtering Effect of Colon Capsule Endoscopy in Surveillance Cohorts.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.