4.4 Article

Diagnostic value of capsule endoscopy and double-balloon enteroscopy in small bowel diseases

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 328-335

出版社

E-CENTURY PUBLISHING CORP

关键词

Capsule endoscopy; double-balloon enteroscopy; diagnosis; small bowel bleeding

资金

  1. Improvement of clinical trial ability of digestive specialty group of the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University [20190018-0024]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the clinical data of 134 cases of CE and 109 cases of DBE were retrospectively analyzed. The results showed that DBE had a higher disease diagnostic rate and suspected intestinal bleeding rate than CE, but required a longer examination time, had a higher incidence of adverse reactions, and a lower examination tolerance than CE.
Objective: To analyze the diagnostic value of capsule endoscopy (CE) and double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) in small bowel diseases. Methods: The clinical data of 134 cases of CE and 109 cases of DBE examined in our gastroscopy room from January 2016 to December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The two groups of patients were compared as to disease diagnostic rate, examination time, examination tolerance, and incidence of adverse reactions. Results: The two groups showed no significant difference in general data (all P>0.05). The DBE group showed a higher disease diagnostic rate than the CE group (P<0.05). Significantly higher rates of suspected intestinal bleeding were observed in the DBE group than those of the CE group (P<0.05), but no significant differences were found in the diagnosis of unexplained abdominal pain, abdominal distension, and others (all P>0.05). The DBE group required a longer examination time, and had a higher incidence of adverse reactions, and a lower examination tolerance than the CE group (P<0.05). Conclusion: Both DBE and CE are effective in small bowel diseases diagnoses, but DBE demonstrated greater potential in diagnosing small bowel bleeding.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据