The evaluation of the OMOM capsule endoscopy with similar pictures elimination mode

• Published in: Clinics and research in hepatology and gastroenterology 2014-12, Vol.38 (6), p.757-762
• Main Authors: Xu, Yangzhi, Zhang, Wei, Ye, Shanliang, Han, Zelong, Bai, Yang, Li, Aimin, Chen, Zhenyu, Wan, Tianmo, Liu, Side
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Capsule Endoscopy - instrumentation; Digestive system. Abdomen; Endoscopy; Female; Gastroenterology and Hepatology; Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen; Humans; Internal Medicine; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects); Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Retrospective Studies; Sensitivity and Specificity; Software
• ISSN: 2210-7401; 2210-741X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.clinre.2014.05.009

Summary Background and objective The reading of capsule endoscopy (CE) is time-consuming. Thus, several time-saving features have been added to the CE software by different CE companies. However, the similar pictures elimination mode in the OMOM capsule endoscopy software has not been evaluated yet. Our aim is to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the similar pictures elimination mode. Methods We retrospectively studied 200 consecutive capsule endoscopy procedures in Nanfang Hospital between April 2012 and July 2012, among which 52 cases were excluded for poor bowel preparation, failure to reach the colon or data missing. All images of the small-bowel were re-evaluated with four different reading modes (conventional mode and three levels of similar pictures elimination mode) by four experienced endoscopists. Then, the reading time, the number of detected lesions, κ value, sensitivity and specificity were compared between 4 methods. Results The mean reading time with levels I to III, respectively, was significantly shorter than with conventional mode ( P < 0.001, conventional mode 33.25 min, level I 24.90 min, level II 20.54 min, level III 14.96 min). The sensitivity between conventional mode and level I were similar (93.8% vs. 87.7%, P = 0.073), while the sensitivity of levels II and III was significantly lower than conventional mode (77.8% vs. 93.8%, 70% vs. 93.8%, respectively). The specificity between all 4 modes were similar (100% for conventional mode, 98.5% for levels I to III). Conclusions Level I reading mode was as efficient as the conventional mode and less time-consuming. Its sensitivity and specificity were similar compared with the conventional mode.