Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20449561›Full record

ArticleDer Internist2010

[Imaging of the small intestine: current knowledge].

H E Adamek, C F Dietrich

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Internist, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. [Imaging in chronic inflammatory bowel disease].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  2. Review
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

2 authors.

H E AdamekMedizinische Klinik 2, Klinikum Leverkusen, Leverkusen, Germany.
C F Dietrich

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Imaging of the small intestine is most challenging in daily routine. With endoscopy (including balloon enteroscopy) and modern high resolution imaging methods, e.g., ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT), the gastroenterologist has ideal complementary methods available. Radiation exposure has to be kept in mind using CT and conventional X-ray-techniques. Therefore, most importantly ultrasound and MRI have changed the routine diagnostics of intestinal diseases. The three methods are not only assessing the lumen but similarly important also the wall and the surrounding structures of the small intestine. Furthermore functional processes can be visualized and provide important information about passage and perfusion which is mainly true for the real-time technique ultrasound. Balloon enteroscopy is the method of choice to examine the mucosa and luminal aspects and to achieve histological proven diagnosis by biopsy. The future role of capsule techniques has not yet been determined. This article addresses the endoscopist, radiologists and ultrasonographer interested in small intestinal disease. The authors give an overview of the actual significance of each method imaging the small intestine. After comments on the methods the typical indications are discussed.

Indexed as

ForecastingIntestinesHumansIntestinal DiseasesMagnetic Resonance ImagingTomography, X-Ray ComputedUltrasonography

Identifiers

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.