ArticleDEN open2026
A Prospective Study Comparing the Diagnostic Ability of Abdominal Ultrasonography with Computed Tomography in Cases Suspected of Retaining the Patency Capsule.
Article in DEN open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Patency capsule (PC) testing is widely used to assess small-bowel patency before small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE). Although abdominal computed tomography (CT) reliably identifies PC location, routine use is limited by radiation exposure and cost. Abdominal ultrasonography (AUS) is a noninvasive, radiation-free alternative; however, its diagnostic accuracy for PC localization remains unclear. Methods: We conducted a prospective, exploratory, single-center study in patients in whom PC excretion could not be confirmed within the predefined observation period. All patients underwent AUS followed by CT on the same day. The primary endpoint was the sensitivity of AUS for detecting small-bowel PC retention using CT as the reference standard. Secondary endpoints included the PC visualization rate, diagnostic accuracy for small bowel versus colon classification, six-segment agreement between AUS and CT, and SBCE retention after AUS-based assessment. Results: Thirty-four patients were included. AUS visualized the PC in 28 patients (82.4%). All six patients with small-bowel retention on CT were correctly identified as "small bowel" by AUS (sensitivity 100%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 61.0-100). Among 28 patients with colonic PC on CT, AUS classified 22 as "colon," yielding a sensitivity of 78.6% (95% CI, 60.5-89.9). Six-segment agreement between AUS and CT was 82.4% overall and 100% among visualized cases. No SBCE retention occurred after AUS-based colonic classification. Conclusions: AUS accurately detected small-bowel PC retention and showed good agreement with CT when visualization was achieved. Although non-visualized findings require cautious interpretation, AUS may serve as a useful first-line imaging modality for evaluating PC location prior to SBCE. Trial Registration: N/A.
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.