Su1731 THE COMPARISON OF THE EFFICIENCY OF COLON CAPSULE ENDOSCOPY AND OPTICAL COLONOSCOPY IN PATIENTS WITH POSITIVE IMMUNOCHEMICAL FECAL OCCULT BLOOD TEST: MULTICENTER, PROSPECTIVE STUDY

Voska, Michal; Grega, Tomáš; Ngo, Ondřej; Bučková, Barbora; Májek, Ondřej; Vojtechova, Gabriela; Tachecí, Ilja; Benes, Marek; Bureš, Jan; Špičák, Julius; Zavoral, Miroslav; Suchánek, Štěpán

doi:10.1016/j.gie.2019.03.603

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After the removal of duplicates this was reduced to 1326 and, additionally, 1274 were excluded after title and abstract screening. Full text screening was performed for 52 references and 14 were eventually included in the study (Figure 1) [11,[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. In 12 studies, participants had undergone both CCE and COC, and in two (n = 2) studies they were randomized for either.…”

Section: Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Preferences for Colon Capsule Endoscopy and Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Colon capsule endoscopy as an alternative to colonoscopy for the diagnosis of colonic disease may serve as a less invasive and more tolerable investigation for patients. Our aim was to examine patient-reported outcomes for colon capsule endoscopy compared to conventional optical colonoscopy including preference of investigation modality, tolerability and adverse events. A systematic literature search was conducted in Web of Science, PubMed and Embase. Search results were thoroughly screened for in- and exclusion criteria. Included studies underwent assessment of transparency and completeness, after which, data for meta-analysis were extracted. Pooled estimates of patient preference were calculated and heterogeneity was examined including univariate meta-regressions. Patient-reported tolerability and adverse events were reviewed. Out of fourteen included studies, twelve had investigated patient-reported outcomes in patients who had undergone both investigations, whereas in two the patients were randomized between investigations. Pooled patient preferences were estimated to be 52% (CI 95%: 41–63%) for colon capsule endoscopy and 45% (CI 95%: 33–57%) for conventional colonoscopy: not indicating a significant difference. Procedural adverse events were rarely reported by patients for either investigation. The tolerability was high for both colon capsule endoscopy and conventional colonoscopy. Patient preferences for conventional colonoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy were not significantly different. Procedural adverse events were rare and the tolerability for colon capsule endoscopy was consistently reported higher or equal to that of conventional colonoscopy.

show abstract

Section: Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…eventually included in the study (Figure 1) [11,[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. In 12 studies, participants had undergone both CCE and COC, and in two (n = 2) studies they were randomized for either.…”

Section: Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%