Prospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Gastroenterol. Jul 28, 2019; 25(28): 3808-3822
Published online Jul 28, 2019. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i28.3808
Table 1 Summery of studies comparing imaging modalities to capsule endoscopy
Author /year / typeCountryAge group/ total No.Patient populationModalities compared to CEResults
Albert 2005[14]GermanyAdults/52Established and suspected CDMREDiagnostic yield of WCE is superior to MRE ( +ve MRE 32/52 vs +ve WCE 25/27)
Golder 2006 prospective[15]GermanyAdults/16Established CDMREDiagnostic yield of WCE is similar to that of MRE ( +ve MRE 9/15 vs +ve WCE 11/15), but the WCE is superior in detecting proximal SB disease
Tillack 2008 prospective[16]GermanyAdults/19Established CDMREDiagnostic yield of WCE is similar to that of MRE (+ve MRE 18/19 vs +ve WCE 18/19) but the WCE is superior in detecting proximal SB disease
Dionisio 2010 prospectiveEurope, Canada, Israel and United StatesAll ages/ 428Established and suspected CDCTE and SBFT and MREDiagnostic yield of WCE is superior to that of CTE and SBR in suspected CD but it is similar to MRE in suspected and established CD
Metanalysis[17]
Crook 2009 prospective[18]SwitzerlandAdults/5Suspected CDMREDiagnostic yield of WCE is similar to that of MRE and complementary to each other
Bocker 2010 prospective[19]GermanyAdults/21Established and suspected CDMREDiagnostic yield of WCE is similar to that of MRE ( +ve MRE 6/21 vs +ve WCE 9/21) but the WCE is superior in detecting proximal SB disease
Jensen 2011 prospective[20]DenmarkAdults/93Established and suspected CDMREDiagnostic yield of WCE is similar to that of MRE( +ve MRE 24/80 vs +ve WCE 22/80) but the WCE is superior in detecting proximal SB disease
Wiarda 2011 prospective[21]The NetherlandsAdults/38Established and suspected CDMREDiagnostic yield of WCE is similar that of MRE ( +ve MRE 16/38 vs +ve WCE 6/25)
Kopylov 2015 prospective[22]IsraelAdults/77Established CDMREDiagnostic yield of WCE is similar to that of MRE ( +ve MRE 40/52 vs +ve WCE 42/52) but the WCE is superior in detecting proximal SB disease
Gonzalez Suarez 2017 retrospective[23]SpainAdults/47Established and suspected CDMREWCE is superior to MRE in detection of small bowel lesions mainly proximal(+ve WCE 36/47 vs +ve MRE 21/47)
Di Nardo 2010 prospective[24]ItalyPeds/117Established and suspected CDMRI and SICUSreclassifying indeterminate colitis (IC) into CD (60%), detection of CD lesions in known CD (41%) and establishing new diagnosis in suspected CD (50%)
Casciani 2011 prospective[13]ItalyPeds/60suspected CDMREDiagnostic yield of WCE is similar to that of MRE ( +ve MRE 19/37 vs +ve WCE 10/60)
Gralnek 2012 prospective[25]IsraelPeds /18Established and suspected CDNo studies compared
Kovanlikaya 2013[11] retrospectiveUnited StatesPeds/23Established and suspected CDMRESensitivity of MRE 75% was similar to WCE 77.8%
Aloi 2015 prospective[9]ItalyPeds/25Established and suspected CDMRE and SICUSDiagnostic yield of WCE is similar to that of MRE and SICUS ( +ve MRE 15/25 vs +ve SICUS 16/25 vs +ve WCE 16/25) but the WCE is superior in detecting proximal SB disease
Oliva 2016 prospective[12]ItalyPeds/38Established CDMRE and SICUSDiagnostic yield of WCE is similar to that of MRE and SICUS ( +ve MRE 19/38 vs +ve WCE 19/38 vs +ve SICUS 21/38) but the CCE is superior in detecting proximal SB disease
Table 2 Highlights baseline characteristics of patient’s demographics and clinical and endoscopic descriptions
All patients CD and IC n = 27CD n = 20
Age at diagnosis year13.46 (2.40)13.48 (2.02)
Male %74%75%
Medications ratio (%)
Biological alone or combination therapy12/27 (44.4%)11/20 (55%)
Immune modulators with no biologic combination8/27 (30%)5/20 (25%)
5 ASA +- steroids4/27 (15%)3/20 (15%)
Steroids alone2/27 (7%)0/20 (0%)
Antibiotic alone1/27 (4%)1/20 (5%)
Phenotype%
Inflammatory93%93%
Stricturing7%7%
Duration of disease year1.7 (2.32)2.1 (2.57)
BMI percentile57 (32.9)58.18 (35.83)
PCDAI10.2 (12.5)9.8 (11.6)
SB transit time min233 (115.4)241(184.99)
Days between MRE and WCE days4.19 (1.88)4 (1.90)
Table 3 Magnetic resonance imaging and wireless capsule endoscopy positivity predictive of small bowel involvement in reference pediatric Crohn’s disease activity index > 10 and to histology
Reference standard is PCDAI > 10 indicate active CD
Reference standard is histology in ileum and duodenum
CD only patients (n = 20)
Histology available samples only (n = 14)
MRE
WCE
MRE
WCE
Value95%CIValue95%CIValue95%CIValue95%CI
SEN100%54.07% to 100%83.3%35.88% to 99.58%62.50%24.49% to 91.48%50.00%15.70% to 84.30%
SP57.14%28.86% to 82.34%78.6%49.20% to 95.34%50.00 %11.81% to 88.19%83.33 %35.88% to 99.58%
PPV50%35.32% to 64.68%62.5%36.49% to 82.86%62.50%38.87% to 81.37%80.00%36.99% to 96.46%
NNP100%91.7%64.29% to 98.53%50.00 %23.14% to 76.86%55.56 %36.43% to 73.17%
Accuracy70%45.72 to 88.11%80.0%56.34% to 94.27%57.14%28.86-82.34%64.29%35.14% to 87.24%
Table 4 Fischer exact performance of each diagnostic test compared to other modality or pediatric Crohn’s disease activity index
Studies comparedAll patients (n = 26)CD only (n = 20)
MRE and WCEP = 0.428P = 0.373
MRE and PCDAIP = 0.395P = 0.325
WCE and PCDAIP =0.1892P = 0.0181