Capsule endoscopy (CE) emerged out of the pressing clinical need to image the small bowel (SB) in cases of midgut bleeding and provide an overall comfortable and reliable gastrointestinal (GI) diagnosis 1. Since its wider adoption in clinical practice, significant progress has been made in several areas including software development, hardware features and clinical indications, while innovative applications of CE never cease to appear 2 3. Currently, several manufacturers provide endoscopic capsules with more or less similar technological features 4. Although there is engaging and continuous academic and industry-fueled R&D, promising furtherment of CE technology 4 5, the current status of clinical CE remains that of by and large an imaging modality. Clinical relevance of CE images is cornerstone in the decision-making process for medical management. In one of the larger to date SB CE studies, 4,206 abnormal images were detected in 3,280 patients 6. Thus, CE leads to the identification of a large amount of potential pathology, some of which are pertinent (or relevant) while some (probably the majority) are not.Soon artificial intelligence (AI) is likely to carry out several roles currently performed by humans; in fact, we are witnessing only the first stages of a transition in the clinical adoption of AI-based solutions in several aspects of gastroenterology including CE 7. Until then though, human-based decision-making profoundly impacts patient care and – although not suggested in the updated European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) European curriculum 8 9 – it should be an integral part of CE training. Frequently, interpretation of CE images by experts or at least experienced readers differs. In a tandem CE reading study, expert review of discordant cases revealed a 50 % (13/25 discordant results) error rate by experienced readers, corresponding (in 5/13 cases) to ‘over-classification’ of an irrelevant abnormality 10. Another comparative study showed an ‘over-classification’ of such irrelevant abnormalities in ~10 % of CE readings 11. One thing which has been for a while on the table – in relation to optimizing and/or standardizing CE reporting and subsequent decision-making – is the need for reproducible scoring systems and for a reliable common language among clinicians responsible for further patient’s management.Over the years, several of these scoring systems were developed while others appear in the wake of software and hardware improvements aiming to replace and/or complement their predecessors. This review presents a comprehensive account of the currently available classification/scoring systems in clinical CE spanning from predicting the bleeding potential of identified SB lesions (with emphasis on vascular lesions), and the individual rebleeding risk; scoring systems for the prediction of SB lesions in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGlB), having the potential to improve patient selection and rationalize the use of enteroscopy, with better allocation of resources, optimized diagnostic workflow and tailored treatment. This review also includes scores for reporting the inflammatory burden, the cleansing level that underscores confidence in CE reporting and the mass or bulge question in CE. Essentially, the aim is to become a main text for reference when scoring is required and facilitate the inclusion of -through readiness of access- one of the other in the final report.

Background: Capsule endoscopy (CE) has become a widespread modality for non-invasive evaluation of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, with several CE models having been developed throughout the years. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate performance measures such as completion, detection and retention rates of CE. Methods: Literature through to August 2021 was screened for articles regarding all capsule types: small bowel, double-headed capsule for the colon or PillCam®Crohn’s capsule, magnetically-controlled capsule endoscopy, esophageal capsule and patency capsule. Primary outcomes included detection rate (DR), completion rate (CR) and capsule retention rate (RR). DR, CR and RR were also analyzed in relation to indications such as obscure GI bleeding (OGIB), known/suspected Crohn’s disease (CD), celiac disease (CeD), neoplastic lesions (NL) and clinical symptoms (CS). Results: 328 original articles involving 86,930 patients who underwent CE were included. OGIB was the most common indication (n = 44,750), followed by CS (n = 17,897), CD (n = 11,299), NL (n = 4989) and CeD (n = 947). The most used capsule type was small bowel CE in 236 studies. DR, CR and RR for all indications were 59%, 89.6% and 2%, respectively. According to specific indications: DR were 55%, 66%, 63%, 52% and 62%; CR were 90.6%, 86.5%, 78.2%, 94% and 92.8%; and RR were 2%, 4%, 1%, 6% and 2%. Conclusions: Pooled DR, CR and RR are acceptable for all capsule types. OGIB is the most common indication for CE. Technological advancements have expanded the scope of CE devices in detecting GI pathology with acceptable rates for a complete examination.

Background Chronic diseases, such as IBD, can lead to anxiety and depression which can have a significant impact on productivity at work (presenteeism). The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of depression/anxiety, presenteeism and exercise levels amongst IBD patients. Methods This was a multicentre study whereby adult IBD patients, in clinical remission, were asked to answer an anonymous questionnaire. Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score (HADS), Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS-6) and Godin exercise score were also collected. Results A total of 585 patients were recruited. The majority had Crohn’s disease (CD, 62.2%) and were male (53.0%), with a median age of 39 years (IQR 30-49). A psychiatric diagnosis was present in 10.8% of patients prior to their IBD diagnosis. A further 14.2% of patients were diagnosed post IBD diagnosis, this being commoner in CD patients (41.6% of CD, p<0.01). A raised HADS-anxiety or a HADS-depression score ≥8 was present in 46.1% of patients, with 27.4% having a score ≥11. Low presenteeism at work was present in 34.0%. Patients diagnosed with depression/anxiety had a more sedentary lifestyle (p<0.01), lower presenteeism at work (p<0.01) and a higher rate of unemployment (p<0.01). Conclusion A significant percentage of IBD patients in remission suffer from anxiety and/or depression. Risk factors for these are CD, female gender, use of biological medications, long-standing and perianal disease. Depression/anxiety was associated with a sedentary lifestyle, lower presenteeism at work and unemployment. The use of validated screening tools and appropriate referrals to psychologists and/or psychiatrists should be employed within IBD clinics.

Crohn’s disease (CD) is a lifelong, chronic inflammatory bowel disorder. The small bowel (SB) is involved to varying extents, and the clinical course may vary from an inflammatory type to a more complicated one with stricture, fistula, and abscess formation. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and ileocolonoscopy with biopsies are the conventional endoscopic techniques that usually establish the diagnosis. On the other hand, CD may affect SB segments that cannot be reached through these procedures. Video capsule endoscopy and enteroscopy are additional endoscopic techniques that may allow further SB evaluation in such circumstances. Computed tomographic enterography, magnetic resonance enterography, and ultrasonography are radiologic techniques that serve as a crucial adjunct to endoscopic assessment. They enable the assessment of parts of the bowel that may be difficult to reach with conventional endoscopy; this allows for the detection of active inflammation, penetrating or stricturing disease, and the appreciation of extraintestinal complications. Both endoscopic and radiologic modalities play a role in establishing the diagnosis of CD, as well as determining the disease extent, activity and response to therapy. This review is intended to evaluate these modalities in terms of specificity, sensitivity, potential side-effects, and limiting factors. This should serve as a guide to the clinician for establishing the most appropriate and reliable test within a particular clinical context.

No abstract