Table 2.
Summary of meta-analysis results in studies reporting outcomes as numbers of CE findings detected by RS and nurses.
| Subgroup | Studies (n) | Nurses' findings (n) | RS findings (n) | Pooled proportion of nurses' findings compared to RS findings (95% CI) | I2 (heterogeneity) (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 11 | 712 | 942 | 0.862 (0.750–0.945) | 94.2% (92.2–95.6%) |
| Full studies only | 8 | 642 | 857 | 0.869 (0.730–0.962) | 95.9% (94.4–96.9%) |
| Comparisons by type of CE findings | |||||
| Detection of angioectasias | 6 | 137 | 146 | 0.927 (0.880–0.963) | 0% (0–61%) |
| Detection of ulcers | 5 | 52 | 59 | 0.874 (0.780–0.944) | 0% (0–64.1%) |
| Detection of blood in lumen | 7 | 32 | 32 | 1.000 (0.865–1.000) | 0% (0–58.5%) |
| Comparisons between nurses and RS | |||||
| Nurses vs RS where expert CE readers were involved | 6 | 351 | 487 | 0.889 (0.677–0.995) | 96.7% (95.3–97.5%) |
| Nurses vs RS with only expert CE readers | 3 | 194 | 319 | 0.800 (0.412–0.997) | 97.5% (95.8–98.3%) |
| Nurses with GI endoscopy experience vs RS | 9 | 473 | 622 | 0.890 (0.740–0.980) | 95.4% (93.7–96.5%) |
| Nurses with no GI endoscopy experience vs RS | 3 | 239 | 320 | 0.774 (0.577–0.923) | 86.1% (35.9–93.6%) |
Abbreviations: CE, capsule endoscopy; CI, confidence interval; GI, gastrointestinal; n, number; RS, reference standard.