Copyright
©2010 Baishideng.
World J Gastroenterol. Jan 7, 2010; 16(1): 63-68
Published online Jan 7, 2010. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v16.i1.63
Published online Jan 7, 2010. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v16.i1.63
Group A (standing) | Group B (supine) | Group C (right supine) | P value | |
% | 4/30 (15.8%) | 11/30 (37.3%) | 27/30 (90%) | < 0.0011 |
Mean % Z-line | 8.68 ± 22.96 | 25.16 ± 34.52 | 71.33 ± 33.47 | < 0.0012 |
Mean frames | 0.21 ± 0.53 | 3.23 ± 6.59 | 5.53 ± 7.55 | 0.0172 |
Standing vs supine | Standing vs right supine | Supine vs right supine | ||
% patients | P = 0.0273 | P < 0.0013 | P < 0.0013 | (-) |
Mean % Z-line | NS4 | P < 0.0014 | P < 0.0014 | (-) |
Mean frames | NS4 | P = 0.0024 | NS4 | (-) |
- Citation: Fernandez-Urien I, Borobio E, Elizalde I, Irisarri R, Vila JJ, Urman JM, Jimenez J. Z-line examination by the PillCam™ SB: Prospective comparison of three ingestion protocols. World J Gastroenterol 2010; 16(1): 63-68
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v16/i1/63.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v16.i1.63