Ian Io Lei, Alexandra Agache, Alexander Robertson, Camilla Thorndal, Ulrik Deding, Ramesh Arasaradnam, Anastasios Koulaouzidis
{"title":"随访内镜检查率作为结肠胶囊内镜检查有效性的指标:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Ian Io Lei, Alexandra Agache, Alexander Robertson, Camilla Thorndal, Ulrik Deding, Ramesh Arasaradnam, Anastasios Koulaouzidis","doi":"10.1136/bmjgast-2025-001800","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has emerged as a promising alternative for investigating lower gastrointestinal symptoms. However, its adoption has been limited due to concerns about cost-effectiveness, significantly influenced by follow-up endoscopy rates (FERs). Understanding CCE's FERs is crucial for its integration into routine clinical practice. We synthesised the evidence to evaluate the overall rate of further investigation in CCE.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Medline, Embase, and PubMed were searched through 15 August 2024.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Studies included reporting FERs after CCE, including subsequent endoscopic procedures and radiological imaging. There were no language restrictions or limitations in CCE referral indications, patient recruitment criteria, or pathologies investigated.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>All studies were independently screened and extracted two times by four reviewers. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis and meta-regression to identify key contributing factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>2850 participants from 19 studies were included in the analysis. Compared with the key performance indicators for FERs in colonoscopy (0.10-0.15) and CT colonography (0.25), the pooled FER for CCE was found to be 0.42 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.50). The meta-regression analysis identified complete transit rates and adequate bowel cleansing quality as factors inversely associated with FERs. Furthermore, the CCE2 capsule demonstrated a higher reinvestigation risk than CCE1, likely due to its improved diagnostic accuracy. Although CCE indications were associated with lower FERs, subgroup analysis did not reach statistical significance with high heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study highlights significant FERs for CCE and identifies key contributing factors, emphasising the importance of appropriate patient selection to reduce reinvestigation needs. Future research should focus on improving completion rates, bowel preparation protocols, and refining CCE indications. This will minimise environmental impact and enhance cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42024567959.</p>","PeriodicalId":9235,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Gastroenterology","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12067854/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Follow-up endoscopy rates as an indicator of effectiveness in colon capsule endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ian Io Lei, Alexandra Agache, Alexander Robertson, Camilla Thorndal, Ulrik Deding, Ramesh Arasaradnam, Anastasios Koulaouzidis\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjgast-2025-001800\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has emerged as a promising alternative for investigating lower gastrointestinal symptoms. However, its adoption has been limited due to concerns about cost-effectiveness, significantly influenced by follow-up endoscopy rates (FERs). Understanding CCE's FERs is crucial for its integration into routine clinical practice. We synthesised the evidence to evaluate the overall rate of further investigation in CCE.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Medline, Embase, and PubMed were searched through 15 August 2024.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Studies included reporting FERs after CCE, including subsequent endoscopic procedures and radiological imaging. There were no language restrictions or limitations in CCE referral indications, patient recruitment criteria, or pathologies investigated.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>All studies were independently screened and extracted two times by four reviewers. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis and meta-regression to identify key contributing factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>2850 participants from 19 studies were included in the analysis. Compared with the key performance indicators for FERs in colonoscopy (0.10-0.15) and CT colonography (0.25), the pooled FER for CCE was found to be 0.42 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.50). The meta-regression analysis identified complete transit rates and adequate bowel cleansing quality as factors inversely associated with FERs. Furthermore, the CCE2 capsule demonstrated a higher reinvestigation risk than CCE1, likely due to its improved diagnostic accuracy. Although CCE indications were associated with lower FERs, subgroup analysis did not reach statistical significance with high heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study highlights significant FERs for CCE and identifies key contributing factors, emphasising the importance of appropriate patient selection to reduce reinvestigation needs. Future research should focus on improving completion rates, bowel preparation protocols, and refining CCE indications. This will minimise environmental impact and enhance cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42024567959.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9235,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Open Gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12067854/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Open Gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2025-001800\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2025-001800","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:结肠胶囊内窥镜(CCE)已成为一种有前途的替代检查下消化道症状。然而,由于对成本效益的担忧,其采用受到限制,这在很大程度上受到后续内镜检查率(FERs)的影响。了解CCE的fer对于将其纳入常规临床实践至关重要。我们综合了证据来评估CCE进一步调查的总体比率。设计:按照系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目进行系统评价和荟萃分析。数据来源:Medline, Embase和PubMed检索至2024年8月15日。入选标准:研究纳入了CCE后的报告患者,包括随后的内窥镜手术和放射成像。在CCE转诊指征、患者招募标准或病理调查方面没有语言限制或限制。数据提取和综合:所有研究均由4名审稿人独立筛选和提取2次。采用随机效应模型进行meta分析和meta回归,以确定关键影响因素。结果:来自19项研究的2850名受试者被纳入分析。与结肠镜检查(0.10-0.15)和CT结肠镜检查(0.25)的关键绩效指标相比,CCE的合并FER为0.42 (95% CI 0.34 ~ 0.50)。荟萃回归分析发现,完全转运率和足够的肠道清洁质量是与fe负相关的因素。此外,CCE2胶囊显示出比CCE1更高的再调查风险,可能是由于其更高的诊断准确性。虽然CCE适应症与较低的fer相关,但亚组分析无统计学意义,异质性高。结论:本研究突出了CCE的显著FERs,并确定了关键的影响因素,强调了适当选择患者以减少重新调查需求的重要性。未来的研究应侧重于提高完成率、肠道准备方案和完善CCE适应症。这将最大限度地减少对环境的影响,提高成本效益和患者满意度。普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42024567959。
Follow-up endoscopy rates as an indicator of effectiveness in colon capsule endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Objective: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has emerged as a promising alternative for investigating lower gastrointestinal symptoms. However, its adoption has been limited due to concerns about cost-effectiveness, significantly influenced by follow-up endoscopy rates (FERs). Understanding CCE's FERs is crucial for its integration into routine clinical practice. We synthesised the evidence to evaluate the overall rate of further investigation in CCE.
Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
Data sources: Medline, Embase, and PubMed were searched through 15 August 2024.
Eligibility criteria: Studies included reporting FERs after CCE, including subsequent endoscopic procedures and radiological imaging. There were no language restrictions or limitations in CCE referral indications, patient recruitment criteria, or pathologies investigated.
Data extraction and synthesis: All studies were independently screened and extracted two times by four reviewers. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis and meta-regression to identify key contributing factors.
Results: 2850 participants from 19 studies were included in the analysis. Compared with the key performance indicators for FERs in colonoscopy (0.10-0.15) and CT colonography (0.25), the pooled FER for CCE was found to be 0.42 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.50). The meta-regression analysis identified complete transit rates and adequate bowel cleansing quality as factors inversely associated with FERs. Furthermore, the CCE2 capsule demonstrated a higher reinvestigation risk than CCE1, likely due to its improved diagnostic accuracy. Although CCE indications were associated with lower FERs, subgroup analysis did not reach statistical significance with high heterogeneity.
Conclusion: This study highlights significant FERs for CCE and identifies key contributing factors, emphasising the importance of appropriate patient selection to reduce reinvestigation needs. Future research should focus on improving completion rates, bowel preparation protocols, and refining CCE indications. This will minimise environmental impact and enhance cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction.
期刊介绍:
BMJ Open Gastroenterology is an online-only, peer-reviewed, open access gastroenterology journal, dedicated to publishing high-quality medical research from all disciplines and therapeutic areas of gastroenterology. It is the open access companion journal of Gut and is co-owned by the British Society of Gastroenterology. The journal publishes all research study types, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Publishing procedures are built around continuous publication, publishing research online as soon as the article is ready.