Reviewer's report
Title:Colon Capsule Endoscopy compared to Conventional Colonoscopy under
routine screening conditions
Version: 3Date:11 March 2010
Reviewer: Andre Van Gossum
Reviewer's report:
The authors report their experience of using CCE as a new method for CRC
screening. They compared CEE to colonoscopy in 59 patients.
Remarks
Design : the authors changed several aspect compared to previously reported
data :
1. Significant polyp >5 mm instead of 6 mm.
2. Colonoscopy is performed on day 2 and not the same day.
3. They use a 3 point scale for colon cleanliness instead of a 4 point scale.
4. Timing of PEG ingestion is different.
Why did the authors select these changes ?
The rate of false positive for CCE is high (13/56). It is a pity that these patients
did not undergo a second leak endoscopy. Indeed, the possibility of false positive
CCE which are may be false negative for colonoscopy was already known
regarding previous studies.
What questions were asked to assess the acceptance ?
How do you explain that 30% "felt heavily restricted" during CCE ? It is not
commonly reported with SDB capsule.
In general, the number of patients enrolled in this study is very low to assess
CCE as a screening method.
They confirmed a low sensitivity.
Regarding the low number of patients, the use of the NPV is debatable.
In conclusion, this study is weak. The most interesting information concerns the
design of the preparation.
Reviewer's report
Title:Colon Capsule Endoscopy compared to Conventional Colonoscopy under
routine screening conditions
Version: 3Date:11 March 2010
Reviewer: Andre Van Gossum
Reviewer's report:
The authors report their experience of using CCE as a new method for CRC
screening. They compared CEE to colonoscopy in 59 patients.
Remarks
Design : the authors changed several aspect compared to previously reported
data :
1. Significant polyp >5 mm instead of 6 mm.
2. Colonoscopy is performed on day 2 and not the same day.
3. They use a 3 point scale for colon cleanliness instead of a 4 point scale.
4. Timing of PEG ingestion is different.
Why did the authors select these changes ?
The rate of false positive for CCE is high (13/56). It is a pity that these patients
did not undergo a second leak endoscopy. Indeed, the possibility of false positive
CCE which are may be false negative for colonoscopy was already known
regarding previous studies.
What questions were asked to assess the acceptance ?
How do you explain that 30% "felt heavily restricted" during CCE ? It is not
commonly reported with SDB capsule.
In general, the number of patients enrolled in this study is very low to assess
CCE as a screening method.
They confirmed a low sensitivity.
Regarding the low number of patients, the use of the NPV is debatable.
In conclusion, this study is weak. The most interesting information concerns the
design of the preparation.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Colon Capsule Endoscopy compared to Conventional Colonoscopy under
routine screening conditions
Version: 3Date:11 March 2010
Reviewer: Andre Van Gossum
Reviewer's report:
The authors report their experience of using CCE as a new method for CRC
screening. They compared CEE to colonoscopy in 59 patients.
Remarks
Design : the authors changed several aspect compared to previously reported
data :
1. Significant polyp >5 mm instead of 6 mm.
2. Colonoscopy is performed on day 2 and not the same day.
3. They use a 3 point scale for colon cleanliness instead of a 4 point scale.
4. Timing of PEG ingestion is different.
Why did the authors select these changes ?
The rate of false positive for CCE is high (13/56). It is a pity that these patients
did not undergo a second leak endoscopy. Indeed, the possibility of false positive
CCE which are may be false negative for colonoscopy was already known
regarding previous studies.
What questions were asked to assess the acceptance ?
How do you explain that 30% "felt heavily restricted" during CCE ? It is not
commonly reported with SDB capsule.
In general, the number of patients enrolled in this study is very low to assess
CCE as a screening method.
They confirmed a low sensitivity.
Regarding the low number of patients, the use of the NPV is debatable.
In conclusion, this study is weak. The most interesting information concerns the
design of the preparation.
assistant