Yi Lu1, Rui Gao, Zhuan Liao, Liang-Hao Hu, Zhao-Shen Li. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, 168 Changhai Road, Shanghai 200433, China.
Abstract
AIM: To review the literature on capsule endoscopy (CE) for detecting esophageal varices using conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) as the standard. METHODS: A strict literature search of studies comparing the yield of CE and EGD in patients diagnosed or suspected as having esophageal varices was conducted by both computer search and manual search. Data were extracted to estimate the pooled diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: There were seven studies appropriate for meta-analysis in our study, involving 446 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CE for detecting esophageal varices were 85.8% and 80.5%, respectively. In subgroup analysis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 82.7% and 54.8% in screened patients, and 87.3% and 84.7% in the screened/patients under surveillance, respectively. CONCLUSION: CE appears to have acceptable sensitivity and specificity in detecting esophageal varices. However, data are insufficient to determine the accurate diagnostic value of CE in the screen/surveillance of patients alone.
AIM: To review the literature on capsule endoscopy (CE) for detecting esophageal varices using conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) as the standard. METHODS: A strict literature search of studies comparing the yield of CE and EGD in patients diagnosed or suspected as having esophageal varices was conducted by both computer search and manual search. Data were extracted to estimate the pooled diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: There were seven studies appropriate for meta-analysis in our study, involving 446 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CE for detecting esophageal varices were 85.8% and 80.5%, respectively. In subgroup analysis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 82.7% and 54.8% in screened patients, and 87.3% and 84.7% in the screened/patients under surveillance, respectively. CONCLUSION: CE appears to have acceptable sensitivity and specificity in detecting esophageal varices. However, data are insufficient to determine the accurate diagnostic value of CE in the screen/surveillance of patients alone.
Authors: G J Gores; R H Wiesner; E R Dickson; A R Zinsmeister; R A Jorgensen; A Langworthy Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 1989-06 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Rami Eliakim; Virender K Sharma; Kamel Yassin; Samuel N Adler; Harold Jacob; David R Cave; Ritu Sachdev; Roger D Mitty; Dirk Hartmann; Dieter Schilling; Jurgen F Riemann; Simon Bar-Meir; Eytan Bardan; Brian Fennerty; Glenn Eisen; Douglas Faigel; Blair S Lewis; David E Fleischer Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 3.062
Authors: Stuart L Triester; Jonathan A Leighton; Grigoris I Leontiadis; David E Fleischer; Amy K Hara; Russell I Heigh; Arthur D Shiff; Virender K Sharma Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Francisco C Ramirez; Shahina Hakim; Erin M Tharalson; Masud S Shaukat; Rodney Akins Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: G P Rigo; A Merighi; N J Chahin; M Mastronardi; P L Codeluppi; A Ferrari; C Armocida; G Zanasi; A Cristani; G Cioni Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 1992 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Agostino Colli; Juan Cristóbal Gana; Dan Turner; Jason Yap; Thomasin Adams-Webber; Simon C Ling; Giovanni Casazza Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-10-01
Authors: Ian Schreibman; Kevin Meitz; Allen R Kunselman; Matthew Downey; Tri Le; Thomas Riley Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2010-05-19 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Javier Romero-Vázquez; Federico Argüelles-Arias; Josefa Maria García-Montes; Ángel Caunedo-Álvarez; Francisco Javier Pellicer-Bautista; Juan Manuel Herrerías-Gutiérrez Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-06-21 Impact factor: 5.742