ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Defining post-colon capsule endoscopy colorectal cancer (pCCECRC)-an International Capsule Endoscopy Research (iCARE) group consensus statement.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND
aimsColon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has seen increased adoption as a large bowel diagnostic test over the past decade. Unlike colonoscopy, the post-test colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes are yet to be standardised and reported. This international consensus aimed to establish a framework to define pCCECRC.
methodsA modified Delphi process was conducted in accordance with CREDES guidance. Expert panellists were recruited from the International Capsule Endoscopy Research (iCARE) group and leads of CCE services in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Statements were informed by a systematic literature review and developed by a core steering group. Two rounds of anonymous online voting were undertaken to measure expert agreement on a total of 11 statements. A scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was utilised. Agreement was defined as ≥ 75% agree or strongly agree with a maximum IQR of 1.
results40 experts participated in round one, with 36 completing round two. Consensus was achieved for all statements. One statement, relating to how pCCECRC should be defined did not reach the consensus threshold in round 1 and was revised before reaching consensus in round 2. pCCECRC was endorsed as an appropriate quality metric, with definitions aligned to PCCRC where feasible. A 6-month post-procedure grace period was agreed, and reporting of a pCCECRC-3-year rate was recommended. Separate unadjusted (service-level) and adjusted (test-specific) pCCECRC rates were defined. A structured "most plausible explanation" framework for attribution is proposed that both aligns with PCCRC methodology and considers the more complex diagnostic pathway of CCE services that usually entails multiple tests.
conclusionThis consensus proposes standardised definitions and reporting recommendations for pCCECRC. The proposed framework is intended to support quality assurance and evaluation of CCE services. Validation using real-world service datasets is required.
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.