Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy: Benefits of Rereading Rather than Repeating – a Single Blinded Randomized Study

IF 0.4 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Alamir-Noureddine AlAyoubi, Ayman Tabcheh, Nourhane Obeid, Antoine Challita, Judy Matta, Said Farhat
{"title":"Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy: Benefits of Rereading Rather than Repeating – a Single Blinded Randomized Study","authors":"Alamir-Noureddine AlAyoubi, Ayman Tabcheh, Nourhane Obeid, Antoine Challita, Judy Matta, Said Farhat","doi":"10.1055/s-0043-1774807","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Introduction Small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) technology detects small bowel lesions. Many factors affect its sensitivity. SBCE is also costly, and patients might not be able to repeat the test when results are equivocal. Instead of repeating the test, reading the results by two endoscopists might provide a better or a cheaper option in the right settings. We studied the sensitivity of SBCE when read by two different physicians and checked if, rather than repeating the examination, rereading the results improved its sensitivity. Furthermore, we studied the effect of small bowel transit time (SBTT) on the diagnostic yield. Methods A retrospective cohort study on capsule endoscopies was conducted between 2018 and 2019 in a tertiary care center in Lebanon. A total of 42 patients with anemia or obscure gastrointestinal bleed were included for SBCE after a negative evaluation with upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. Two specialists read the results. The second physician was blinded from the first reader's results. We compared the sensitivity of the two readings. SBTT correlation with the diagnostic yield was calculated. Results Out of 42 patients, 18 tested positive in the first reading and 31 in the second reading. The diagnostic yield increased from 43 to 74% (p = 0.0043). Among the 33 patients who had a documented SBTT, longer SBTT correlated with a higher diagnostic yield (odds ratio [OR] > 1), but no statistical significance was demonstrated. Conclusion Within the limitations of this study, we found that rereading capsule endoscopy can be more cost-effective than repeating the test.","PeriodicalId":43098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Digestive Endoscopy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Digestive Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1774807","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) technology detects small bowel lesions. Many factors affect its sensitivity. SBCE is also costly, and patients might not be able to repeat the test when results are equivocal. Instead of repeating the test, reading the results by two endoscopists might provide a better or a cheaper option in the right settings. We studied the sensitivity of SBCE when read by two different physicians and checked if, rather than repeating the examination, rereading the results improved its sensitivity. Furthermore, we studied the effect of small bowel transit time (SBTT) on the diagnostic yield. Methods A retrospective cohort study on capsule endoscopies was conducted between 2018 and 2019 in a tertiary care center in Lebanon. A total of 42 patients with anemia or obscure gastrointestinal bleed were included for SBCE after a negative evaluation with upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. Two specialists read the results. The second physician was blinded from the first reader's results. We compared the sensitivity of the two readings. SBTT correlation with the diagnostic yield was calculated. Results Out of 42 patients, 18 tested positive in the first reading and 31 in the second reading. The diagnostic yield increased from 43 to 74% (p = 0.0043). Among the 33 patients who had a documented SBTT, longer SBTT correlated with a higher diagnostic yield (odds ratio [OR] > 1), but no statistical significance was demonstrated. Conclusion Within the limitations of this study, we found that rereading capsule endoscopy can be more cost-effective than repeating the test.
小肠胶囊内窥镜检查:重读而不是重复的好处-一项单盲随机研究
小肠胶囊内镜(SBCE)技术检测小肠病变。影响其灵敏度的因素很多。SBCE也很昂贵,当结果不明确时,患者可能无法重复测试。而不是重复测试,阅读结果由两个内窥镜医生可能会提供一个更好或更便宜的选择在正确的设置。我们研究了由两名不同的医生阅读时SBCE的敏感性,并检查了重复阅读结果是否提高了其敏感性,而不是重复检查。此外,我们还研究了小肠运输时间(SBTT)对诊断率的影响。方法2018 - 2019年在黎巴嫩某三级医疗中心进行胶囊内窥镜回顾性队列研究。共有42例贫血或消化道隐晦出血患者在上、下消化道内镜检查结果阴性后接受SBCE检查。两位专家宣读了结果。第二位医生对第一位读者的结果一无所知。我们比较了两种读数的灵敏度。计算SBTT与诊断率的相关性。结果42例患者中,18例患者一读呈阳性,31例患者二读呈阳性。诊断率从43%提高到74% (p = 0.0043)。在33例有SBTT记录的患者中,较长的SBTT与较高的诊断率相关(优势比[OR] >1),但无统计学意义。结论在本研究的局限性内,我们发现重新阅读胶囊内窥镜检查比重复检查更具成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Digestive Endoscopy
Journal of Digestive Endoscopy GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
28.60%
发文量
35
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Digestive Endoscopy (JDE) is the official publication of the Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy of India that has over 1500 members. The society comprises of several key clinicians in this field from different parts of the country and has key international speakers in its advisory board. JDE is a double-blinded peer-reviewed, print and online journal publishing quarterly. It focuses on original investigations, reviews, case reports and clinical images as well as key investigations including but not limited to cholangiopancreatography, fluoroscopy, capsule endoscopy etc.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信