These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Capsule endoscopy has a significantly higher diagnostic yield in patients with suspected and established small-bowel Crohn's disease: a meta-analysis.
    Author: Dionisio PM, Gurudu SR, Leighton JA, Leontiadis GI, Fleischer DE, Hara AK, Heigh RI, Shiff AD, Sharma VK.
    Journal: Am J Gastroenterol; 2010 Jun; 105(6):1240-8; quiz 1249. PubMed ID: 20029412.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: Capsule endoscopy (CE) has demonstrated superior performance compared with other modalities in its ability to detect early small-bowel (SB) Crohn's disease (CD), especially when ileoscopy is negative or unsuccessful. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of CE compared with other modalities in patients with suspected and established CD using a meta-analysis. METHODS: A thorough literature search for prospective studies comparing the diagnostic yield of CE with other modalities in patients with CD was undertaken. Other modalities included push enteroscopy (PE), colonoscopy with ileoscopy (C+IL), SB radiography (SBR), computed tomography enterography (CTE), and magnetic resonance enterography (MRE). Data on diagnostic yield among various modalities were extracted, pooled, and analyzed. Data on patients with suspected and established CD were analyzed separately. Weighted incremental yield (IYW) (diagnostic yield of CE-diagnostic yield of comparative modality) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of CE over comparative modalities were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 12 trials (n=428) compared the yield of CE with SBR in patients with CD. Eight trials (n=236) compared CE with C+IL, four trials (n=119) compared CE with CTE, two trials (n=102) compared CE with PE, and four trials (n=123) compared CE with MRE. For the suspected CD subgroup, several comparisons met statistical significance. Yields in this subgroup were CE vs. SBR: 52 vs. 16% (IYw=32%, P<0.0001, 95% CI=16-48%), CE vs. CTE: 68 vs. 21% (IYw=47%, P<0.00001, 95% CI=31-63%), and CE vs. C+IL: 47 vs. 25% (IYw=22%, P=0.009, 95% CI=5-39%). Statistically significant yields for CE vs. an alternate diagnostic modality in established CD patients were seen in CE vs. PE: 66 vs. 9% (IYw=57%, P<0.00001, 95% CI=43-71%), CE vs. SBR: 71 vs. 36% (IYw=38%, P<0.00001, 95% CI=22-54%), and in CE vs. CTE: 71 vs. 39% (IYw=32%, P=or<0.0001, 95% CI=16-47%). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that CE is superior to SBR, CTE, and C+IL in the evaluation of suspected CD patients. CE is also a more effective diagnostic tool in established CD patients compared with SBR, CTE, and PE.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]