M1521: Accuracy of Colon Capsule Endoscopy As Compared to Colonoscopy in the Detection of Colorectal Polyps: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2010 ◽  
Vol 71 (5) ◽  
pp. AB244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristiano Spada ◽  
Cesare Hassan ◽  
Riccardo Marmo ◽  
Angelo Zullo ◽  
Paola Cesaro ◽  
...  
2010 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 516-522.e8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristiano Spada ◽  
Cesare Hassan ◽  
Riccardo Marmo ◽  
Lucio Petruzziello ◽  
Maria Elena Riccioni ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
T Bjoersum-Meyer ◽  
K Skonieczna-Zydecka ◽  
P Cortegoso Valdivia ◽  
I Stenfors ◽  
I Lutakov ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 93 (6) ◽  
pp. AB100
Author(s):  
Marianny Sulbaran ◽  
Wanderley M. Bernardo ◽  
Leonardo A. Bustamante-Lopez ◽  
Christiano M. Sakai ◽  
Paulo Sakai ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 09 (11) ◽  
pp. E1658-E1673
Author(s):  
Thomas Bjoersum-Meyer ◽  
Karolina Skonieczna-Zydecka ◽  
Pablo Cortegoso Valdivia ◽  
Irene Stenfors ◽  
Ivan Lyutakov ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and study aims Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is an alternative to conventional colonoscopy (CC) in specific clinical settings. High completion rates (CRs) and adequate cleanliness rates (ACRs) are fundamental quality parameters if CCE is to be widely implemented as a CC equivalent diagnostic modality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of different bowel preparations regimens on CR and ACR in CCE. Patients and methods We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The primary outcome measures (CR, ACR) were retrieved from the individual studies and pooled event rates were calculated. Results Thirty-four observational (OBS) studies (n = 3,789) and 12 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (n = 1,214) comprising a total 5,003 patients were included. The overall CR was 0.798 (95 % CI, 0.764–0.828); the highest CRs were observed with sodium phosphate (NaP) + gastrografin booster (n = 2, CR = 0.931, 95 % CI, 0.820–0.976). The overall ACR was 0.768 (95 % CI, 0.735–0.797); the highest ACRs were observed with polyethylene glycol (PEG) + magnesium citrate (n = 4, ER = 0.953, 95 % CI, 0.896–0.979). Conclusions In the largest meta-analysis on CCE bowel preparation regimens, we found that both CRs and ACRs are suboptimal compared to the minimum recommended standards for CC. PEG laxative and NaP booster were the most commonly used but were not associated with higher CRs or ACRs. Well-designed studies on CCE should be performed to find the optimal preparation regimen.


2021 ◽  
Vol 09 (04) ◽  
pp. E562-E571
Author(s):  
Tobias Möllers ◽  
Matthias Schwab ◽  
Lisa Gildein ◽  
Michael Hoffmeister ◽  
Jörg Albert ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and study aims Adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is still unsatisfactory in many countries, thereby limiting prevention of CRC. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), a minimally invasive procedure, could be an alternative to fecal immunochemical tests or optical colonoscopy for CRC screening, and might increase adherence in CRC screening. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of CCE compared to optical colonoscopy (OC) as the gold standard, adequacy of bowel preparation regimes and the patient perspective on diagnostic measures. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Register for Clinical Trials. Pooled estimates for sensitivity, specificity and the diagnostic odds ratio with their respective 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for studies providing sufficient data. Results Of 840 initially identified studies, 13 were included in the systematic review and up to 9 in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivities and specificities for polyps ≥ 6 mm were 87 % (95 % CI: 83 %–90 %) and 87 % (95 % CI: 76 %–93 %) in 8 studies, respectively. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, the pooled estimates for sensitivities and specificities were 87 % (95 % CI: 83 %–90 %) and 95 % (95 % CI: 92 %–97 %) in 9 studies, respectively. A patients’ perspective was assessed in 31 % (n = 4) of studies, and no preference of CCE over OC was reported. Bowel preparation was adequate in 61 % to 92 % of CCE exams. Conclusions CCE provides high diagnostic accuracy in an adequately cleaned large bowel. Conclusive findings on patient perspectives require further studies to increase acceptance/adherence of CCE for CRC screening.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document