Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 635

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The First Prospective Controlled Trial Comparing Wireless Capsule Endoscopy with Push Enteroscopy in Chronic Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Ell, C., Remke, S., May, A., Helou, L., Henrich, R., Mayer, G.·2002·Endoscopy

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: In chronic gastrointestinal bleeding (CGB), bleeding sites located in the small bowel are difficult to detect with conventional radiological or scintigraphic techniques. Push enteroscopy (PE) is at present considered to be the most effective diagnostic procedure. The aim of this prospective trial was to compare the efficacy of wireless capsule endoscopy (CE) with PE. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between April and October 2001, 65 patients with CGB were referred to our unit. Complete conventional diagnostic work-up (including small-bowel enteroclysis, angiography, and scintigraphy), as well as PE and CE, were performed in 32 patients. RESULTS: On average, the patients had been suffering from CGB for 29 +/- 24 months (6 - 126); the lowest hemoglobin level varied between 3.0 and 9.9 g/dl (mean 5.9 +/- 1.4); 17 +/- 18 blood units (0 - 60) were transfused. Each patient underwent 6 +/- 7 (range 1 - 38) hospitalizations, with a mean of 14 +/- 9 diagnostic procedures before CE was used. Conventional diagnostic procedures revealed relevant pathological findings in five of the 32 patients (16 %). Definite bleeding sites diagnosed by PE in nine patients (28 %) included angiodysplasia (seven patients), small-bowel cancer (one patient) and lymphoma (one patient). CE detected the definite source in 21 of the 32 patients (66 %) ( P < 0.001). Definite bleeding sources included angiodysplasia (17 patients), malignant stenoses (two patients) and inflammatory small-bowel disease (two patients). Questionable bleeding sources were seen on PE in three additional patients (9 %), and using CE in a further seven patients (22 %). Both CE and PE were safe and were not associated with any morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: In the present trial in patients with CGB, wireless CE had the highest diagnostic yield and was significantly superior to PE. CE can help reduce the number of diagnostic procedures and could become the initial diagnostic choice in patients with CGB and negative upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy.

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-2002-33446

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 635

Metadata

Authors
Ell, C., Remke, S., May, A., Helou, L., Henrich, R., & Mayer, G.
Venue
Endoscopy
Published
2002-09
Volume
34
Issue
9
Pages
685-689
ISSN
  • 0013-726X (ISSN-L)
  • 1438-8812
OpenAlex
W1994478058
Cited by
635
References
0
FWCI
49.92
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: The First Prospective Controlled Trial Comparing Wireless Capsule Endoscopy with Push Enteroscopy in Chronic Gastrointestinal Bleeding. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1055/s-2002-33446
The paper
Ell, C., Remke, S., May, A., Helou, L., Henrich, R., & Mayer, G. (2002). The First Prospective Controlled Trial Comparing Wireless Capsule Endoscopy with Push Enteroscopy in Chronic Gastrointestinal Bleeding. Endoscopy. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2002-33446

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.