Introduction: The diagnostic yield (DY) of small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) varies considerably according to its indication. Some strategies have been used to increase DY with varying results. The intention of this study was to identify whether evaluation of the SBCE recordings by a second reviewer can increase DY and change patient management. Methods: One hundred SBCEs with different indications, already read by an endoscopist were read by a second blinded endoscopist. When the results of the 2 readings were different, the images were discussed by the endoscopists; if no consensus was reached, they took the opinion of a third endoscopist into account. All the participating endoscopists had experience in reading SBCEs (i.e., >50 per year). The SBCE findings were divided into positive (vascular lesions, ulcers, and tumors), equivocal (erosions or red spots), and negative. The interobserver agreement and the increase in DY were assessed as well as the percentage of false-negatives (FNs) in the first evaluation. Results: The indications for SBCE were small-bowel bleeding (SBB) in 48 cases, Crohn's disease (CD) in 30, and other causes (iron-deficiency anemia, small-bowel tumors, and diarrhea) in 22. There was substantial interobserver agreement between evaluations (κ = 0.79). The findings in the first evaluation were positive in 60%, equivocal in 20% and, negative in 20%. In the second evaluation, 66% were positive, 18% were equivocal, and 16% were negative. The increase in DY with the second reading was 6% (p = 0.380), i.e., 6.3% for SBB, 4.4% for CD and 9.2% for other indications, resulting in a change in management of 4% of the patients. FNs in the first SBCE reading were found in 4% of the SBCEs. Discussion: A second evaluation of the SBCE recordings identified significant pathology that the first evaluation had missed, resulting in a nonsignificant 6% increase in DY and a change in the management of 4% of the patients.
Introduction: The diagnostic yield (DY) of small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) varies considerably according to its indication. Some strategies have been used to increase DY with varying results. The intention of this study was to identify whether evaluation of the SBCE recordings by a second reviewer can increase DY and change patient management. Methods: One hundred SBCEs with different indications, already read by an endoscopist were read by a second blinded endoscopist. When the results of the 2 readings were different, the images were discussed by the endoscopists; if no consensus was reached, they took the opinion of a third endoscopist into account. All the participating endoscopists had experience in reading SBCEs (i.e., >50 per year). The SBCE findings were divided into positive (vascular lesions, ulcers, and tumors), equivocal (erosions or red spots), and negative. The interobserver agreement and the increase in DY were assessed as well as the percentage of false-negatives (FNs) in the first evaluation. Results: The indications for SBCE were small-bowel bleeding (SBB) in 48 cases, Crohn's disease (CD) in 30, and other causes (iron-deficiency anemia, small-bowel tumors, and diarrhea) in 22. There was substantial interobserver agreement between evaluations (κ = 0.79). The findings in the first evaluation were positive in 60%, equivocal in 20% and, negative in 20%. In the second evaluation, 66% were positive, 18% were equivocal, and 16% were negative. The increase in DY with the second reading was 6% (p = 0.380), i.e., 6.3% for SBB, 4.4% for CD and 9.2% for other indications, resulting in a change in management of 4% of the patients. FNs in the first SBCE reading were found in 4% of the SBCEs. Discussion: A second evaluation of the SBCE recordings identified significant pathology that the first evaluation had missed, resulting in a nonsignificant 6% increase in DY and a change in the management of 4% of the patients.
Authors: Cristiano Spada; Deirdre McNamara; Edward J Despott; Samuel Adler; Brooks D Cash; Ignacio Fernández-Urién; Hrvoje Ivekovic; Martin Keuchel; Mark McAlindon; Jean-Christophe Saurin; Simon Panter; Cristina Bellisario; Silvia Minozzi; Carlo Senore; Cathy Bennett; Michael Bretthauer; Mario Dinis-Ribeiro; Dirk Domagk; Cesare Hassan; Michal F Kaminski; Colin J Rees; Roland Valori; Raf Bisschops; Matthew D Rutter Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2019-05-10 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: C Van de Bruaene; P Hindryckx; C Snauwaert; D Dooremont; B Vanduyfhuys; L Vandenabeele; M De Vos; D De Looze Journal: Acta Gastroenterol Belg Date: 2016 Sep-Dec Impact factor: 1.316
Authors: Shahab Mehdizadeh; Gary C Chen; Linda Barkodar; Pedram J Enayati; Shahriar Pirouz; Michael Yadegari; Andrew Ippoliti; Eric A Vasiliauskas; Simon K Lo; Konstantinos Antonios Papadakis Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-10-27 Impact factor: 9.427