A Pooled Analysis to Evaluate Results of Capsule Endoscopy Trials

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract, Results (p. 960)
A total of 1349 instances of disease were identified in the 530 examinations. Capsule endoscopy solely detected 87 % of the disease instances, while the comparison method solely detected 13 %. The yield for push enteroscopy alone was 14.8 %, for small-bowel series it was 9.9 % and for colonoscopy it was 13.2 %. Capsule endoscopy missed 146 disease instances for a miss rate of 10 %; 989 were missed by the comparison methods for a miss rate of 73 %; and 214 were detected by both methods.
This should read: A total of 1349 instances of disease were identified in the 530 examinations. Capsule endoscopy solely detected 73 % of the disease instances, while the comparison method solely detected 11 %. The yield for push enteroscopy alone was 14.8 %, for small-bowel series it was 9.9 %, and for colonoscopy it was 13.2 %. Capsule endoscopy missed 146 disease instances for a miss rate of 11 %; 989 were missed by the comparison methods for a miss rate of 73 %; and 214 were detected by both methods.

The first paragraph of the discussion (p. 963/964):
Capsule endoscopy has revolutionized the endoscopic examination of the small bowel. The data presented here have shown capsule endoscopy to have a significantly greater detection capability for suspected disease of the small intestine compared with push enteroscopy, small-bowel series and colonoscopy with ileal intubation. Capsule endoscopy identified disease in approximately 70 % of the examinations, double the yield of other methods. Approximately 90 % of 1349 instances of disease were not identified by any other method other than capsule endoscopy.
This should read: Capsule endoscopy has revolutionized the endoscopic examination of the small bowel. The data presented here have shown capsule endoscopy to have a significantly greater detection capability for suspected disease of the small intestine compared with push enteroscopy, small-bowel series and colonoscopy with ileal intubation. Capsule endoscopy identified disease in approximately 89 % of the examinations, whereas 27 % were detected by the comparison method. Approximately 73 % of 1349 instances of disease were not identified by any other method other than capsule endoscopy.

The second paragraph on p. 965:Similar results were encountered for the non-bleeding studies. In these studies, 52.8 % of patients had findings not identified by any other method and the overall rate of findings was 70%. This compares favorably with the comparison methods, which found 12.8 % of lesions solely and had an overall yield of 31%.
This should read: Similar results were encountered for the non-bleeding studies. In these studies, 52.8 % of patients had findings not identified by any other method and the overall rate of findings was 70 % for capsule endoscopy. This compares favorably with the comparison methods, which found 11.8 % of lesions solely and had an overall yield of 35.4 %.

Table 4, column ”none”, line ”nonbleeding” (p. 963):
37 cases, 12.8 %.
This column should read: 37 cases, 11.8 %.

The last paragraph (p. 965):
In summary, this pooled analysis shows capsule endoscopy to be the state-of-the-art tool for small-bowel imaging. It is superior to push enteroscopy, small-bowel series, and colonoscopy with ileal intubation. The yield of capsule endoscopy for identification of disease is double the yield of the other methods, and when observations of disease are counted individually, 90 % of instances cannot be seen by any other method.
This should read: In summary, this pooled analysis shows capsule endoscopy to be the state-of-the-art tool for small-bowel imaging. It is superior to push enteroscopy, small-bowel series, and colonoscopy with ileal intubation. The yield of capsule endoscopy for identification of disease is double the yield of the other methods, and when observations of disease are counted individually, 73 % of instances cannot be seen by any other method.