TY - JOUR
T1 - Capsule endoscopy has a significantly higher diagnostic yield in patients with suspected and established small-bowel crohn's disease
T2 - A meta-analysis
AU - Dionisio, Paula M.
AU - Gurudu, Suryakanth R.
AU - Leighton, Jonathan A.
AU - Leontiadis, Grigoris I.
AU - Fleischer, David E.
AU - Hara, Amy K.
AU - Heigh, Russell I.
AU - Shiff, Arthur D.
AU - Sharma, Virender K.
PY - 2010/6
Y1 - 2010/6
N2 - Objectives: Capsule endoscopy (CE) has demonstrated superior performance compared with other modalities in its ability to detect early small-bowel (SB) Crohn's disease (CD), especially when ileoscopy is negative or unsuccessful. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of CE compared with other modalities in patients with suspected and established CD using a meta-analysis.Methods: A thorough literature search for prospective studies comparing the diagnostic yield of CE with other modalities in patients with CD was undertaken. Other modalities included push enteroscopy (PE), colonoscopy with ileoscopy (CIL), SB radiography (SBR), computed tomography enterography (CTE), and magnetic resonance enterography (MRE). Data on diagnostic yield among various modalities were extracted, pooled, and analyzed. Data on patients with suspected and established CD were analyzed separately. Weighted incremental yield (IYW) (diagnostic yield of CEdiagnostic yield of comparative modality) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of CE over comparative modalities were calculated.Results: A total of 12 trials (n428) compared the yield of CE with SBR in patients with CD. Eight trials (n236) compared CE with CIL, four trials (n119) compared CE with CTE, two trials (n102) compared CE with PE, and four trials (n123) compared CE with MRE. For the suspected CD subgroup, several comparisons met statistical significance. Yields in this subgroup were CE vs. SBR: 52 vs. 16% (IYw 32%, P<0.0001, 95% CI16-48%), CE vs. CTE: 68 vs. 21% (IYw 47%, P<0.00001, 95% CI31-63%), and CE vs. CIL: 47 vs. 25% (IYw 22%, P=0.009, 95% CI5-39%). Statistically significant yields for CE vs. an alternate diagnostic modality in established CD patients were seen in CE vs. PE: 66 vs. 9% (IYw 57%, P<0.00001, 95% CI43-71%), CE vs. SBR: 71 vs. 36% (IYw 38%, P<0.00001, 95% CI22-54%), and in CE vs. CTE: 71 vs. 39% (IYw 32%, P<0.0001, 95% CI16-47%).Conclusions: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that CE is superior to SBR, CTE, and CIL in the evaluation of suspected CD patients. CE is also a more effective diagnostic tool in established CD patients compared with SBR, CTE, and PE.
AB - Objectives: Capsule endoscopy (CE) has demonstrated superior performance compared with other modalities in its ability to detect early small-bowel (SB) Crohn's disease (CD), especially when ileoscopy is negative or unsuccessful. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of CE compared with other modalities in patients with suspected and established CD using a meta-analysis.Methods: A thorough literature search for prospective studies comparing the diagnostic yield of CE with other modalities in patients with CD was undertaken. Other modalities included push enteroscopy (PE), colonoscopy with ileoscopy (CIL), SB radiography (SBR), computed tomography enterography (CTE), and magnetic resonance enterography (MRE). Data on diagnostic yield among various modalities were extracted, pooled, and analyzed. Data on patients with suspected and established CD were analyzed separately. Weighted incremental yield (IYW) (diagnostic yield of CEdiagnostic yield of comparative modality) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of CE over comparative modalities were calculated.Results: A total of 12 trials (n428) compared the yield of CE with SBR in patients with CD. Eight trials (n236) compared CE with CIL, four trials (n119) compared CE with CTE, two trials (n102) compared CE with PE, and four trials (n123) compared CE with MRE. For the suspected CD subgroup, several comparisons met statistical significance. Yields in this subgroup were CE vs. SBR: 52 vs. 16% (IYw 32%, P<0.0001, 95% CI16-48%), CE vs. CTE: 68 vs. 21% (IYw 47%, P<0.00001, 95% CI31-63%), and CE vs. CIL: 47 vs. 25% (IYw 22%, P=0.009, 95% CI5-39%). Statistically significant yields for CE vs. an alternate diagnostic modality in established CD patients were seen in CE vs. PE: 66 vs. 9% (IYw 57%, P<0.00001, 95% CI43-71%), CE vs. SBR: 71 vs. 36% (IYw 38%, P<0.00001, 95% CI22-54%), and in CE vs. CTE: 71 vs. 39% (IYw 32%, P<0.0001, 95% CI16-47%).Conclusions: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that CE is superior to SBR, CTE, and CIL in the evaluation of suspected CD patients. CE is also a more effective diagnostic tool in established CD patients compared with SBR, CTE, and PE.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77953229128&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77953229128&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1038/ajg.2009.713
DO - 10.1038/ajg.2009.713
M3 - Review article
C2 - 20029412
AN - SCOPUS:77953229128
SN - 0002-9270
VL - 105
SP - 1240
EP - 1248
JO - American Journal of Gastroenterology
JF - American Journal of Gastroenterology
IS - 6
ER -