Clinical Benefits and Challenges in Application of Novel Portable Gastric Capsule Endoscopy for Home Healthcare Patients
Diagnostics, ISSN: 2075-4418, Vol: 12, Issue: 7
2022
- 6Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures6
- Readers6
Article Description
Portable magnetic-assisted capsule endoscopy (MACE) provides satisfactory patient experience and safety with comparable performance in diagnosis of organic lesions when compared to conventional upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. In this study, a total of 58 homecare patients were included for MACE either in the hospital (n = 42) or at home (n = 16), with mean age of 71.1 ± 12.4 years. A total of 55 patients (94.83%) had completed the MACE with diagnosis of reflux esophagitis (43.6%), gastritis (54.5%), erosions (21.8%), fundic polyps (14.5%), peptic ulcers (25.9%), etc. Most patients (n = 47, 85.5%) were satisfied with the experience, and all patients who received MACE at home (n = 15, 100%) appreciated the convenience of endoscopy at home. Less than half of the patients (n = 24, 43.6%) could afford MACE if the expense was not covered by health insurance (USD 714). Time consumption from both traffic and capsule manipulation was also challenging for the physicians, as it took an average of 24.7 min to complete MACE, but it added up to a total of 92.7 min at home, which is about 15 times that of conventional endoscopy in hospital. More efforts are needed to ease the financial burden of patients, and optimization of workflow in community practice may help lift the obstacles revealed in this study.
Bibliographic Details
MDPI AG
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know