ArticleFrontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland)2022
Single or double headed capsules for the investigation of suspected small bowel bleeding: Are two heads better than one.
Article in Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland), 2022. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Capsule endoscopy is now the accepted first line investigation for suspected small bowel (SB) bleeding. Recent evidence suggests the diagnostic yield for SB pathology may be higher for tailored double headed (DH) SB capsules. Whether other forms of bidirectional capsules offer a similar advantage is less clear. Aim: To compare the efficacy of single headed versus bidirectional capsules in detecting pathology in patients with suspected small bowel bleeding. Methods: A single centre prospective comparison study was conducted over an 8 month period in a tertiary care hospital. Patients referred with overt or suspected SB bleeding were assigned to either SB3 Medtronic SB capsule (SH) during the initial four months or PillCam Colon 2 Medtronic capsule (DH) during the subsequent four months. Studies were analysed by trained Capsule Endoscopists and approved by our institutions capsule review board. Findings were compared between SH and DH capsules using a chi Results: 201 subjects were included, mean age 61.8 years, 90 (45%) male. Majority referred with occult bleeding, 153 (76%). DH and SH capsule used in 100 and 101 cases, respectively. 90% (n=181) capsules were complete and overall diagnostic yield was 57% (n=114). Diagnostic yield was similar between both groups - DH 53% (n=53), SH 60% (n=61). Positive finding in overt bleeding; SH 85% (n=22) versus DH 50% (n=11), p<0.02. SH capsules more frequently detected SB inflammation, 27 (27%) versus 9 (9%), p<0.002. More patients had another diagnosis in the DH (19) than the SH (9), p<0.04, the majority were type 1a vascular lesions, "red spots" or diminutive colonic polyps. Conclusion: Single head and double head capsules perform similary in terms of diagnostic yield overall. This supports the continued use of standard small bowel capsules for investigation of the small bowel.
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.