BACKGROUND AND AIM: Uncertainty remains about the best test to evaluate patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). Previous meta-analyses demonstrated similar diagnostic yields with capsule endoscopy (CE) and double balloon enteroscopy (DBE) but relied primarily on data from abstracts and were not limited to bleeding patients. Many studies have since been published. Therefore, we performed a new meta-analysis comparing CE and DBE focused specifically on OGIB. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed of comparative studies using both CE and DBE in patients with OGIB. Data were extracted and analyzed to determine the weighted pooled diagnostic yields of each method and the odds ratio for the successful localization of a bleeding source. RESULTS: Ten eligible studies were identified. The pooled diagnostic yield for CE was 62% (95% confidence interval [CI] 47.3-76.1) and for DBE was 56% (95% CI 48.9-62.1), with an odds ratio for CE compared with DBE of 1.39 (95% CI 0.88-2.20; P = 0.16). Subgroup analysis demonstrated the yield for DBE performed after a previously positive CE was 75.0% (95% CI 60.1-90.0), with the odds ratio for successful diagnosis with DBE after a positive CE compared with DBE in all patients of 1.79 (95% CI 1.09-2.96; P = 0.02). In contrast, the yield for DBE after a previously negative CE was only 27.5% (95% CI 16.7-37.8). CONCLUSIONS: Capsule endoscopy and double balloon enteroscopy provide similar diagnostic yields in patients with OGIB. However, the diagnostic yield of DBE is significantly higher when performed in patients with a positive CE.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Uncertainty remains about the best test to evaluate patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). Previous meta-analyses demonstrated similar diagnostic yields with capsule endoscopy (CE) and double balloon enteroscopy (DBE) but relied primarily on data from abstracts and were not limited to bleedingpatients. Many studies have since been published. Therefore, we performed a new meta-analysis comparing CE and DBE focused specifically on OGIB. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed of comparative studies using both CE and DBE in patients with OGIB. Data were extracted and analyzed to determine the weighted pooled diagnostic yields of each method and the odds ratio for the successful localization of a bleeding source. RESULTS: Ten eligible studies were identified. The pooled diagnostic yield for CE was 62% (95% confidence interval [CI] 47.3-76.1) and for DBE was 56% (95% CI 48.9-62.1), with an odds ratio for CE compared with DBE of 1.39 (95% CI 0.88-2.20; P = 0.16). Subgroup analysis demonstrated the yield for DBE performed after a previously positive CE was 75.0% (95% CI 60.1-90.0), with the odds ratio for successful diagnosis with DBE after a positive CE compared with DBE in all patients of 1.79 (95% CI 1.09-2.96; P = 0.02). In contrast, the yield for DBE after a previously negative CE was only 27.5% (95% CI 16.7-37.8). CONCLUSIONS: Capsule endoscopy and double balloon enteroscopy provide similar diagnostic yields in patients with OGIB. However, the diagnostic yield of DBE is significantly higher when performed in patients with a positive CE.