Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 301

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Single-Center Experience of 260 Consecutive Patients Undergoing Capsule Endoscopy for Obscure Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Carey, Elizabeth J, Leighton, Jonathan A, Heigh, Russell I, Shiff, Arthur D, Sharma, Virender K, Post, Janice K, Fleischer, David E·2007·The American Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Capsule endoscopy (CE) has revolutionized the evaluation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) but published literature is limited to small series with heterogeneous indications. The aim of this study was to determine the findings and the diagnostic yield of CE in a large series of patients with overt and occult OGIB. METHODS: Data on 260 patients who underwent CE for overt (N = 126) or occult (N = 134) OGIB were obtained by retrospective chart review and review of an internal database of CE patients and findings. RESULTS: Visualization of the entire small bowel was achieved in 74%. The majority of exams (66%) were rated as having a good or excellent prep. Clinically significant positive findings occurred in 53%. The yield of CE in the obscure-overt group was greater than in the obscure-occult group (60%vs 46%, P= 0.03). Small bowel angioectasias were the most common finding, comprising over 60% of clinically significant lesions. The mean follow-up was 9.6 months, and there were significant reductions in hospitalizations, additional tests/procedures, and units of blood transfused after CE. Both before and after CE, patients in the overt group had more significant GI bleeding than patients in the occult group. Complications occurred in five (1.9%) cases: nonnatural excretion (four) and CE impaction at cricopharyngeus (one). CONCLUSIONS: The yield of clinically important findings on CE in patients with OGIB is 53% and is greater in patients with obscure-overt than obscure-occult GI bleeding. Angioectasias account for the majority of significant lesions in both groups. Compared with pre-CE, patients had clinical improvement post-CE in medical interventions for OGIB. Complications of CE occur in less than 2% of cases.

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 · 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00941.x

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 301

Metadata

Authors
Carey, E. J., Leighton, J. A., Heigh, R. I., Shiff, A. D., Sharma, V. K., Post, J. K., & Fleischer, D. E.
Venue
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
2007-01
Volume
102
Issue
1
Pages
89-95
ISSN
  • 0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-0241
OpenAlex
W2066963563
Cited by
301
References
4
FWCI
13.57
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: A Single-Center Experience of 260 Consecutive Patients Undergoing Capsule Endoscopy for Obscure Gastrointestinal Bleeding. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00941.x
The paper
Carey, E. J., Leighton, J. A., Heigh, R. I., Shiff, A. D., Sharma, V. K., Post, J. K., & Fleischer, D. E. (2007). A Single-Center Experience of 260 Consecutive Patients Undergoing Capsule Endoscopy for Obscure Gastrointestinal Bleeding. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00941.x

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.