4.7 Article

Can we reduce capsule endoscopy reading times?

期刊

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
卷 69, 期 3, 页码 497-502

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.05.070

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Analyzing small-bowel capsule endoscopy (CE) images is time Consuming. Objective: To determine the effect of reducing the number Of images on reacting time and interpretation of CE procedures. Design: Two techniques aimed at reducing the number of images to he viewed were Studied. The number Of images was reduced by removing every second image (study A) or by the Quickview mode (study B). In both studies, one endoscopist viewed the images in the conventional way, whereas another endoscopist viewed the reduced number of images. Setting: A single-center prospective study. Patients: Two hundred CE procedures, 100 consecutive procedures for each study. Main Outcome Measurements: Reading times for small-bowel images were recorded. Kappa (kappa) values were used to calculate interobserver agreement between viewing techniques. Diagnostic miss rates were calculated. Results: Median procedure reacting times were significantly reduced by viewing half the number of images (10.2 Minutes) or using the Quickview technique (4.4 minutes) compared with conventional viewing (17.0 minutes). Interobserver agreement was excellent (kappa = 0.91) it) Study A and good (kappa = 0.74) in study B. The diagnostic miss rate was 2% when half the number Of images were viewed and 8% when the Quickview technique was used. Agreement between both techniques and conventional viewing was best when the indication for the procedure was suspected inflammatory bowel disease. Limitation: Lack of a criterion standard. Conclusions: Techniques that reduce the number of images examined in CE are time saving but are associated with considerable diagnostic miss rates. Such techniques may only be considered if inflammatory bowel disease is Suspected. (Gastrointest Endosc 2009;69:497-502.)

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

4.7
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