ObjectiveCapsule endoscopy (CE) has been widely used in the diagnosis of small bowel disease (SBD) in the world. To bring CE into the national health insurance directory, and intensify its popularization in primary hospitals, the government needs high quality health technology assessment (HTA) evidence for decision making. This study was aimed to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness, safety, applicability and economics of CE in the diagnosis of SBD based on global review, to providing the best currently-available evidence for decision making. MethodsWe electronically searched The Cochrane Library (Issue 8, September 2013), PubMed, EMbase, INAHTA, VIP, CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data. We screened studies, extracted data, and evaluated quality independently, according to inclusion and exclusion criteria; and then we made final conclusion after comprehensive analysis. ResultsWe finally included 4 HTAs, 11 systematic reviews (SRs)/ Meta-analyses, 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 5 guidelines, and 10 economics studies for assessment. The results of HTAs, SRs/ meta-analyses and RCTs all showed that, the disease detection rate of CE was higher than that of many other traditional technologies, and that the main adverse event for CE was retention (0.7% to 3.0%), which were consistent with those of the guidelines' recommendations. Besides, the comprehensive results of economics studies showed the superiority of CE compared with other technologies. As the first choice, CE could significantly decrease potential costs, especially when used in outpatients. Conclusiona) Compared with similar technologies, CE indeed has advantages in diagnostic yield, safety and potential costs in the diagnosis of SBD. However, its application has certain limitations, which still needs to be verified by more high quality evidence about CE diagnosis accuracy. b) It is sug gested that, when the government approves the introduction of CE to hospitals, many factors must be considered, such as local disease burden, clinical demands, ability to pay, and staff configuration. At the same time, it is necessary to standardize training for medical technicians, to reduce economic loss caused by poor technical abilities of medicaltechnicians.
Objective To systematically review the efficacy and safety of polyethylene glycol and sodium phosphate in bowel preparation of capsule endoscopy. Methods We searched CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data, PubMed, EMbase, and The Cochrane Library (Issue 6, 2016) up to June 2016, to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about polyethylene glycol and sodium phosphate in bowel preparation of capsule endoscopy. Two reviewers independently screened literatures, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, and then meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.0 software. Results A total of six RCTs involving 531 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: compared with the sodium phosphate solution group, the polyethylene glycol solution group had poor intestinal cleansing effect (OR=0.43, 95%CI 0.21 to 0.88,P=0.02), higher incidence of adverse reaction (OR=3.20, 95%CI 1.13 to 9.06,P=0.03); but shorter gastric retention time (OR=–11.61, 95%CI –13.71 to –9.51,P<0.000 01) and residence time in the small intestine (OR=–4.17, 95%CI –7.74 to –0.60,P=0.02). Conclusion The efficacy of oral polyethylene glycol is poor in cleaning effect and adverse reaction than sodium phosphate solution, but better in the digestive tract residence time for capsule endoscopy. Due to the limited quality and quantity of included studies, the above conclusion is still needed to be proved by more high-quality studies.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the diagnostic value of capsule endoscopy and enteroscopy in small intestinal diseases.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect studies on the diagnosis of intestinal diseases by capsule endoscopy and enteroscopy from inception to August 31st, 2020. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed by using RevMan 5.3 and Meta-DiSc software.ResultsA total of 20 studies were included. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio for capsule endoscopy were 0.86 (95%CI 0.83 to 0.87), 0.81 (95%CI 0.78 to 0.84), 117.07 (95%CI 37.98 to 360.92), 7.20 (95%CI 2.81 to 18.45), 0.11 (95%CI 0.06 to 0.21), and those for enteroscopy were 0.89 (95%CI 0.87 to 0.90), 0.91 (95%CI 0.89 to 0.93), 196.99 (95%CI 72.63 to 534.26), 13.26 (95%CI 5.00 to 35.14), 0.12 (95%CI 0.07 to 0.21). The areas under the working characteristic curve (SROC) of capsule endoscopy and enteroscopy were 0.9692 and 0.9783, respectively.ConclusionsBoth capsule endoscopy and enteroscopy have high specificity and sensitivity in the diagnosis of small intestinal diseases, and enteroscopy has higher clinical value in the diagnosis of some small intestinal diseases than capsule endoscopy. Due to limited quantity and quality of the included studies, the above conclusions are required to be verified by more high-quality studies.