ReviewHealth science reports2026
Diagnostic Efficacy and Clinical Aspects of Panoramic-View Versus Forward-View Capsule Endoscopy for Suspected Small Bowel Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Health science reports, 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.
- Looking Sideways in Capsule Endoscopy: Why Wider Views Still Need Stronger Evidence.Health science reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: CapsoCam provides a 360° panoramic-view in capsule endoscopy (CE). This study aimed to conduct the initial systematic review and meta-analysis on the diagnostic efficacy and clinical aspects of CapsoCam in patients with Suspected small bowel bleeding (SSBB), potentially comparing it to forward-view CE. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases was performed for human studies reporting outcomes of interest up to January 2025. Titles and abstracts were screened, and full-texts were selected based on predefined inclusion criteria by two reviewers. The quality assessment used Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Meta-analysis used a random-effects model with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Publication bias was evaluated using Egger and Begg's tests. A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was performed. Results: Five studies met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in diagnostic yield between the two CE types in cases of SSBB ( Conclusion: Our analysis suggests that CapsoCam demonstrates comparable performance to forward-view CE in terms of diagnostic reliability, clinical efficacy, and safety profile, except for reading time. However, the limited number of studies underscores the need for further research to validate CapsoCam's usability in routine clinical practice for SSBB patients compared to forward-view CE.
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.