Clinical Trials Logo

Occult Gastrointestinal Bleeding clinical trials

View clinical trials related to Occult Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

Filter by:
  • Completed  
  • Page 1

NCT ID: NCT02727075 Completed - Clinical trials for Occult Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Performance Value of Research of Occult Gastrointestinal Bleeding by Immunoassay in the Diagnostic Process of Iron Deficiency Anemia in Patients Over 75 Years

STRATAGANEMIE
Start date: July 2016
Phase:
Study type: Observational

This study aims to characterize the diagnostic performance of immunological testing of occult gastrointestinal bleeding in stool in the population aged over 75 years with iron deficiency anemia. As secondary objectives, the study aims to: - determine a threshold of positivity optimizing the immunoassay performance for the study population, in accordance with the probabilities of error (false positives, false negatives) and weights (defined by expert consensus) allocated to these errors. - Assess the benefit of a double measure of bleeding (two stools) by immunoassay compared to a single measure.

NCT ID: NCT00224627 Completed - Clinical trials for Occult Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Capsule Endoscopy vs. Push Enteroscopy in Occult Gastrointestinal Bleeding OGIB

Start date: March 2002
Phase: Phase 3
Study type: Interventional

Capsule endoscopy (CE) is a safe and effective tool for the assessment of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). However, its real efficacy and its position in the diagnostic algorithm of OGIB vs. push enteroscopy (PE) remain unknown since in previous studies both techniques were performed in all included patients The purpose of this protocol is to conduct a randomized prospective controlled trial in patients with OGIB comparing a strategy based on CE or PE followed by the alternative exploration only when the first line exploration was negative. The main outpoint of this study concerns the diagnostic yield of the two explorations. Second endpoint concerns the clinical relevance of the two strategies tested (CE ± PE vs. CE ± PE) in terms of diagnostic yield, clinical outcome, therapeutic impact and added explorations