Inter-observer variations on interpretation of capsule endoscopies

Objective Capsule endoscopy is a novel investigation for diagnosing small bowel diseases. However, its interpretation is highly subjective and the potential variability may compromise its accuracy and reliability. Here we studied the potential inter-observer variations on the interpretation of capsule endoscopy. Method Two residents and one specialist in gastroenterology independently reviewed 58 capsule endoscopy studies in the same sequential order. The gastric transit time, small bowel transit time, and the most significant small bowel lesion were independently recorded. The consensus transit time was determined by the joint review of the three gastroenterologists. The ‘gold standard’ for small bowel diagnoses was based on final surgical, endoscopic findings or consensus diagnosis. Results Clinically significant and relevant small bowel lesions were found in 32 (55%) cases by consensus review. The overall mean accuracy in determining gastric emptying time, small bowel transit time and small bowel lesion was 89%, 76% and 80%, respectively. There was a significant difference in the accuracy between the residents and specialist on small bowel transit time (P<0.05) and small bowel diagnosis (P<0.05). The mean kappa values on small bowel diagnosis among the three viewers was 0.56 (range, 0.52–0.59). Among various small bowel diagnoses, small bowel bleeding was more accurately identified than other pathology. Conclusions Our results show that there is moderate degree of inter-observer discrepancies on the interpretation of capsule endoscopy. A second reading by an experienced viewer might improve the diagnostic accuracy of this investigation.

[1]  W. Fleig,et al.  Simethicone for small bowel preparation for capsule endoscopy: a systematic, single-blinded, controlled study. , 2004, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[2]  Y Kopelman,et al.  Diagnosing small bowel Crohn’s disease with wireless capsule endoscopy , 2003, Gut.

[3]  C. Gostout,et al.  A prospective comparison of capsule endoscopy and push enteroscopy in patients with GI bleeding of obscure origin. , 2004, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[4]  J. Santisi,et al.  The accuracy of an endoscopy nurse in interpreting capsule endoscopy , 2003, American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[5]  P. Foutch,et al.  Push-enteroscopy for diagnosis of patients with gastrointestinal bleeding of obscure origin. , 1990, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[6]  Paul Swain,et al.  Capsule endoscopy in the evaluation of patients with suspected small intestinal bleeding: Results of a pilot study. , 2002, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[7]  A. May,et al.  The First Prospective Controlled Trial Comparing Wireless Capsule Endoscopy with Push Enteroscopy in Chronic Gastrointestinal Bleeding , 2002, Endoscopy.

[8]  D. Rex,et al.  Enteroclysis in the evaluation of suspected small intestinal bleeding. , 1989, Gastroenterology.

[9]  J. Sung,et al.  Stigmata of hemorrhage in bleeding peptic ulcers: an interobserver agreement study among international experts. , 1997, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[10]  A. Panani,et al.  Bowel preparation increases the diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. , 2004, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[11]  R. E. Miller,et al.  Efficacy study of the small-bowel examination. , 1981, Radiology.

[12]  G. Costamagna,et al.  A prospective trial comparing small bowel radiographs and video capsule endoscopy for suspected small bowel disease. , 2002, Gastroenterology.

[13]  Jacob Cohen A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[14]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[15]  P. Swain,et al.  Wireless capsule endoscopy: a comparison with push enteroscopy in patients with gastroscopy and colonoscopy negative gastrointestinal bleeding , 2003, Gut.

[16]  P. Swain,et al.  Wireless capsule endoscopy. , 2002, The Israel Medical Association journal : IMAJ.