Wael El-Matary1, Hien Huynh, Ben Vandermeer. 1. Division of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Faculty of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. WaelElMatary@Capitalhealth.ca
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the view of small sample sizes of the studies published so far, the value of video capsule endoscopy (VCE) in diagnosing celiac disease (CD) is yet to be determined. The aim of this work was to systemically determine the overall diagnostic characteristics of VCE in diagnosing noncomplicated CD, compared to the gold standard, using meta-analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An extensive literature search was performed looking for prospective, controlled trials, with investigators blinded to results of the pathology of small-bowel biopsies. Two independent authors performed data extraction and assessment of the methodologic quality of each trial. Diagnostic characteristics of each trial were collected, and pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios were computed. Description of complications and costs was included, if reported. RESULTS: A total of three studies met the inclusion criteria (n = 107; 63 with CD and 44 without). The overall pooled VCE sensitivity was 83% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 71-90%) and specificity was 98% (95% CI = 88-99.6%). No major complications were reported. The costs were mentioned only in one study. CONCLUSIONS: The overall diagnostic characteristics of VCE, when used to diagnose celiac disease, though good with an experienced eye, could not justify the routine use of VCE as an alternative to the pathology of small-bowel biopsies. More studies are needed with proper cost-benefit analysis.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the view of small sample sizes of the studies published so far, the value of video capsule endoscopy (VCE) in diagnosing celiac disease (CD) is yet to be determined. The aim of this work was to systemically determine the overall diagnostic characteristics of VCE in diagnosing noncomplicated CD, compared to the gold standard, using meta-analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An extensive literature search was performed looking for prospective, controlled trials, with investigators blinded to results of the pathology of small-bowel biopsies. Two independent authors performed data extraction and assessment of the methodologic quality of each trial. Diagnostic characteristics of each trial were collected, and pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios were computed. Description of complications and costs was included, if reported. RESULTS: A total of three studies met the inclusion criteria (n = 107; 63 with CD and 44 without). The overall pooled VCE sensitivity was 83% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 71-90%) and specificity was 98% (95% CI = 88-99.6%). No major complications were reported. The costs were mentioned only in one study. CONCLUSIONS: The overall diagnostic characteristics of VCE, when used to diagnose celiac disease, though good with an experienced eye, could not justify the routine use of VCE as an alternative to the pathology of small-bowel biopsies. More studies are needed with proper cost-benefit analysis.
Authors: Edward J Ciaccio; Christina A Tennyson; Govind Bhagat; Suzanne K Lewis; Peter Hr Green Journal: Biomed Eng Online Date: 2010-09-04 Impact factor: 2.819
Authors: Emilio G Quetglas; Zlatan Mujagic; Simone Wigge; Daniel Keszthelyi; Sebastian Wachten; Ad Masclee; Walter Reinisch Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-11-28 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Stefania Chetcuti Zammit; Lawrence A Bull; David S Sanders; Jessica Galvin; Nikolaos Dervilis; Reena Sidhu; Keith Worden Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2020-10-02 Impact factor: 4.460