Guturu P, Sagi S V, Ahn D, Jaganmohan S, Kuo Y F, Sood G K
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA.
Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol. 2011 Mar;57(1):1-11.
The aim of the present study was to perform meta-analysis of studies that compare diagnostic capabilities of esophageal capsule endoscopy (ECE) against conventional esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD) in detecting esophageal varices.
A literature search is done for studies that compared the performance of ECE and EGD in screening and surveillance of esophageal varices. Data was extracted to estimate the pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, positive diagnostic ratio, negative diagnostic ratio and diagnostic odds ratio.
We included 9 studies and total number of patients was 631. There were 12 capsule failures so data was available for 619 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CE for detecting esophageal varices were 83% and 85% respectively. The pooled positive likelihood and negative likelihood ratios are 4.09 and 0.25, respectively. Pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 24.92.
In our meta- analysis PillCam ESO performed well in detecting esophageal varices but it was not comparable to EGD; it can be an acceptable alternative in certain situations but cannot be recommended to replace EGD.
本研究旨在对比较食管胶囊内镜（ECE）与传统食管胃十二指肠镜检查（EGD）检测食管静脉曲张诊断能力的研究进行荟萃分析。
检索比较ECE和EGD在食管静脉曲张筛查和监测中表现的研究。提取数据以估计合并敏感度、合并特异度、阳性诊断率、阴性诊断率和诊断比值比。
我们纳入了9项研究，患者总数为631例。有12例胶囊内镜检查失败，因此有619例患者的数据可用。CE检测食管静脉曲张的合并敏感度和特异度分别为83%和85%。合并阳性似然比和阴性似然比分别为4.09和0.25。合并诊断比值比为24.92。
在我们的荟萃分析中，PillCam ESO在检测食管静脉曲张方面表现良好，但与EGD不可比；在某些情况下它可以是一种可接受的替代方法，但不建议用其取代EGD。
