The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Capsule Endoscopy versus Colonoscopy for the Detection of Polyps and Cancer
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: An ingestible capsule consisting of an endoscope equipped with a video camera at both ends was designed to explore the colon. This study compared capsule endoscopy with optical colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer. METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter study comparing capsule endoscopy with optical colonoscopy (the standard for comparison) in a cohort of patients with known or suspected colonic disease for the detection of colorectal polyps or cancer. Patients underwent an adapted colon preparation, and colon cleanliness was graded from poor to excellent. We computed the sensitivity and specificity of capsule endoscopy for polyps, advanced adenoma, and cancer. RESULTS: A total of 328 patients (mean age, 58.6 years) were included in the study. The capsule was excreted within 10 hours after ingestion and before the end of the lifetime of the battery in 92.8% of the patients. The sensitivity and specificity of capsule endoscopy for detecting polyps that were 6 mm in size or bigger were 64% (95% confidence interval [CI], 59 to 72) and 84% (95% CI, 81 to 87), respectively, and for detecting advanced adenoma, the sensitivity and specificity were 73% (95% CI, 61 to 83) and 79% (95% CI, 77 to 81), respectively. Of 19 cancers detected by colonoscopy, 14 were detected by capsule endoscopy (sensitivity, 74%; 95% CI, 52 to 88). For all lesions, the sensitivity of capsule endoscopy was higher in patients with good or excellent colon cleanliness than in those with fair or poor colon cleanliness. Mild-to-moderate adverse events were reported in 26 patients (7.9%) and were mostly related to the colon preparation. CONCLUSIONS: The use of capsule endoscopy of the colon allows visualization of the colonic mucosa in most patients, but its sensitivity for detecting colonic lesions is low as compared with the use of optical colonoscopy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00604162.)
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Capsule Endoscopy: From Current Achievements to Open Challenges
Ciuti, G., Menciassi, A., & Dario, P. (2011) · IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/rbme.2011.2171182 · Cited by 466
Medical Robots: Current Systems and Research Directions
Beasley, R. A. (2012) · Journal of Robotics · doi:10.1155/2012/401613 · Cited by 312
Colon capsule endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline
Spada, C., Hassan, C., Galmiche, J., Neuhaus, H., Dumonceau, J., Adler, S., Epstein, O., Gay, G., Pennazio, M., Rex, D., et al. (2012) · Endoscopy · doi:10.1055/s-0031-1291717 · Cited by 287
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Van Gossum, A., Munoz-Navas, M., Fernandez-Urien, I., Carretero, C., Gay, G., Delvaux, M., Lapalus, M. G., Ponchon, T., Neuhaus, H., Philipper, M., Costamagna, G., Riccioni, M. E., Spada, C., Petruzziello, L., Fraser, C., Postgate, A., Fitzpatrick, A., Hagenmuller, F., Keuchel, M., Schoofs, N., & Devière, J.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2009-07-16
- Volume
- 361
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 264-270
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2154368944
- Cited by
- 368
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Capsule Endoscopy versus Colonoscopy for the Detection of Polyps and Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa0806347
- The paper
- Van Gossum, A., Munoz-Navas, M., Fernandez-Urien, I., Carretero, C., Gay, G., Delvaux, M., Lapalus, M. G., Ponchon, T., Neuhaus, H., Philipper, M., Costamagna, G., Riccioni, M. E., Spada, C., Petruzziello, L., Fraser, C., Postgate, A., Fitzpatrick, A., Hagenmuller, F., Keuchel, M., . . . Devière, J. (2009). Capsule Endoscopy versus Colonoscopy for the Detection of Polyps and Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa0806347
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.