To compare the differences in the detection and diagnosis efficiency of OGIB between CE, MSCT and two detection methods.

Patients who underwent examinations in our hospital from January 2017 to August 2018, who met the inclusion criteria and did not meet the exclusion criteria, were grouped according to age and bleed pattern.CE examinations were performed on patients. MSCT examination, comparing the detection rate of the two types of examination, the cause of the diagnosis of the disease and the consistency of detection and diagnosis.

The detection rate and etiology of CE were significantly higher than those of MSCT (P<0.05). The detection rate and etiology of CE combined with MSCT were significantly higher than CE and MSCT (P<0.05). In the dominant bleeding group, CE lesion detection rate and etiological diagnosis rate were significantly higher than MSCT (P<0.05), CE detection and MSCT lesion detection rate and etiological diagnosis rate were significantly higher than CE and MSCT (P<0.05). In the recessive hemorrhage group, there was no significant difference between the detection rate of CE and MSCT and the cause of diagnosis (P>0.05). The detection rate and etiology of CE and MSCT were significantly higher than CE and MSCT (P< 0.05). The detection rate and etiological diagnosis rate of CE in the young group were significantly higher than those of MSCT (P<0.05). The detection rate and etiological diagnosis rate of CE combined with MSCT were significantly higher than those of MSCT (P<0.05). There was no significant difference (P>0.05). In the middle-aged group, there was no significant difference between CE detection and etiological diagnosis rate and MSCT (P>0.05). The detection rate and etiological diagnosis rate of CE combined with MSCT were significantly higher than CE and MSCT (P< 0.05).

CE and MSCT are safe and effective OGIB detection methods. The detection rate and etiological diagnosis rate of CE for OGIB are significantly higher than those of MSCT, especially in the dominant bleeding group and the young population. The combined detection efficiency of the two was significantly higher than that of CE and MSCT, but in the young population, the combined detection efficiency of the two was not significantly different from the CE alone.