Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19908338›Full record

Trial reportWorld journal of gastroenterology2009

Small bowel MRI enteroclysis or follow through: which is optimal?

Ian C Lawrance, Christopher J Welman, Peter Shipman, Kevin Murray

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in World journal of gastroenterology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ian C LawranceSchool of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, T Block, Fremantle Hospital, Alma Street, Fremantle 6059, WA 6160, Australia. ian.lawrance@uwa.edu.au
Christopher J Welman
Peter Shipman
Kevin Murray

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo determine if a nasojejunal tube (NJT) is required for optimal examination of enteroclysis and if patients can be examined only in the supine position.

methodsData were collected from all patients undergoing small bowel (SB) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination over a 32-mo period. Patients either underwent a magnetic resonance (MR) follow-through (MRFT) or a MR enteroclysis (MRE) in the supine position. The quality of proximal and distal SB distension as well as the presence of motion artefact and image quality were assessed by 2 radiologists.

resultsOne hundred and fourteen MR studies were undertaken (MRFT-49, MRE-65) in 108 patients in the supine position only. Image artefact was more frequent in MRE than in MRFT (29.2% vs 18.4%), but was not statistically significant (P=0.30). Adequate distension of the distal SB was obtained in 97.8% of MRFT examinations and in 95.4% of MRE examinations, respectively. Proximal SB distension was, however, less frequently optimal in MRFT than in MRE (P=0.0036), particularly in patients over the age of 50 years (P=0.0099). Image quality was good in all examinations.

conclusionAll patients could be successfully imaged in the supine position. MRE and MRFT are equivalent for distal SB distension and artefact effects. Proximal SB distension is frequently less optimal in MRFT than in MRE. MRE is, therefore, the preferred MR examination method of the SB.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedArtifactsContrast MediaHumansImage EnhancementImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedIntestine, SmallIntubation, GastrointestinalLogistic ModelsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedRadiographySensitivity and SpecificityContrast Media

Identifiers

PMID19908338
PMCPMC2776857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.