OBJECTIVE: Review of wireless capsule endoscopy recordings is time consuming. The aim of this study was to evaluate four time-saving methods offered with Rapid Software. METHODS: A total of 100 wireless capsule endoscopy videos with abnormal findings were evaluated using five different ways of viewing: (a) manual mode at a speed of 10 frames per second (fps), (b) manual mode at a speed of 20 fps, (c) manual mode with a simultaneous display of two images at a speed of 20 fps, (d) automatic mode at a speed of 10 fps, and (e) quickview mode at a speed of 3 fps. Then, we calculated the concordance of abnormal findings between each one of the four time-saving methods using method A. RESULTS: The mean reading time with time-saving methods was significantly shorter than with method A (method A: 59.8 min, method B: 30 min, method C: 30.2 min, method D: 32.2 min, method E: 16.3 min). The agreement in finding abnormal lesions between method A and the four evaluated methods was excellent and almost perfect (κ>0.8), except for quickview in recognizing polyps. Diagnostic miss rate was 1% for method D, 2% for B and C, and 12% for E. No tumors and cases of celiac or Crohn's disease were lost by all four methods. CONCLUSION: We conclude that manual mode/20 fps, the simultaneous projection of two images/20 fps, and automatic mode/10 fps have minimal diagnostic miss rates and can safely replace slower modes in clinical practice. The quickview mode is a safe diagnostic tool only when larger or diffuse lesions are suspected, such as Crohn's or celiac disease.
OBJECTIVE: Review of wireless capsule endoscopy recordings is time consuming. The aim of this study was to evaluate four time-saving methods offered with Rapid Software. METHODS: A total of 100 wireless capsule endoscopy videos with abnormal findings were evaluated using five different ways of viewing: (a) manual mode at a speed of 10 frames per second (fps), (b) manual mode at a speed of 20 fps, (c) manual mode with a simultaneous display of two images at a speed of 20 fps, (d) automatic mode at a speed of 10 fps, and (e) quickview mode at a speed of 3 fps. Then, we calculated the concordance of abnormal findings between each one of the four time-saving methods using method A. RESULTS: The mean reading time with time-saving methods was significantly shorter than with method A (method A: 59.8 min, method B: 30 min, method C: 30.2 min, method D: 32.2 min, method E: 16.3 min). The agreement in finding abnormal lesions between method A and the four evaluated methods was excellent and almost perfect (κ>0.8), except for quickview in recognizing polyps. Diagnostic miss rate was 1% for method D, 2% for B and C, and 12% for E. No tumors and cases of celiac or Crohn's disease were lost by all four methods. CONCLUSION: We conclude that manual mode/20 fps, the simultaneous projection of two images/20 fps, and automatic mode/10 fps have minimal diagnostic miss rates and can safely replace slower modes in clinical practice. The quickview mode is a safe diagnostic tool only when larger or diffuse lesions are suspected, such as Crohn's or celiac disease.
Authors: Veronica Baptista; Neil Marya; Anupam Singh; Abbas Rupawala; Bilal Gondal; David Cave Journal: World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol Date: 2014-11-15