Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 342

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Prospective multicenter performance evaluation of the second-generation colon capsule compared with colonoscopy

Eliakim, R., Yassin, K., Niv, Y., Metzger, Y., Lachter, J., Gal, E., Sapoznikov, B., Konikoff, F., Leichtmann, G., Fireman, Z., Kopelman, Y., Adler, S.·2009·Endoscopy

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: A second-generation capsule endoscopy system, using the PillCam Colon 2, was developed to increase sensitivity for colorectal polyp detection compared with the first-generation system. The performance of this new system is reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a five-center feasibility study, second-generation capsule endoscopy was prospectively compared with conventional colonoscopy as gold standard for the detection of colorectal polyps and other colonic disease, in a cohort of patients scheduled for colonoscopy and having known or suspected colonic disease. Colonoscopy was independently performed within 10 hours after capsule ingestion. Capsule-positive but colonoscopy-negative cases were counted as false-positive. RESULTS: 104 patients (mean age 49.8 years) were enrolled; data from 98 were analyzed. Patient rate for polyps of any size was 44 %, 53 % of these patients having adenomas. No adverse events related to either procedure were reported. The capsule sensitivity for the detection of patients with polyps >or= 6 mm was 89 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 70 - 97) and for those with polyps >or= 10 mm it was 88 % (95 %CI 56 - 98), with specificities of 76 % (95 %CI 72 - 78) and 89 % (95 %CI 86 - 90), respectively. Both polyps missed by colonoscopy and mismatch in polyp size by study definition lowered specificity. Overall colon cleanliness for capsule endoscopy was adequate in 78 % of patients (95 %CI 68 - 86). CONCLUSIONS: The new second-generation colon capsule endoscopy is a safe and effective method for visualizing the colon and detecting colonic lesions. Sensitivity and specificity for detecting colorectal polyps appear to be very good, suggesting a potential for improved accuracy compared with the first-generation system. Further prospective and comparative studies are needed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1055/s-0029-1215360

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 342

Metadata

Authors
Eliakim, R., Yassin, K., Niv, Y., Metzger, Y., Lachter, J., Gal, E., Sapoznikov, B., Konikoff, F., Leichtmann, G., Fireman, Z., Kopelman, Y., & Adler, S.
Venue
Endoscopy
Published
2009-12-04
Volume
41
Issue
12
Pages
1026-1031
ISSN
  • 0013-726X (ISSN-L)
  • 1438-8812
OpenAlex
W1969122765
Cited by
342
References
0
FWCI
9.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prospective multicenter performance evaluation of the second-generation colon capsule compared with colonoscopy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1055/s-0029-1215360
The paper
Eliakim, R., Yassin, K., Niv, Y., Metzger, Y., Lachter, J., Gal, E., Sapoznikov, B., Konikoff, F., Leichtmann, G., Fireman, Z., Kopelman, Y., & Adler, S. (2009). Prospective multicenter performance evaluation of the second-generation colon capsule compared with colonoscopy. Endoscopy. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1215360

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.