ArticleSurgical endoscopy2011
Colonoscopy for colonic wall thickening at computed tomography: a worthwhile pursuit?
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Study of Small and Large Bowel Wall Thickness Using Computed Tomography and Its Histopathological Correlation.Cureus · 2024Article
- Radiomics-based machine learning in the differentiation of benign and malignant bowel wall thickening radiomics in bowel wall thickening.Japanese journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Predictors of colorectal carcinoma and inflammatory bowel disease in patients with colonic wall thickening.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2022Article
- Predictors of Neoplasia in Colonic Wall Thickening Detected via Computerized Tomography.Cureus · 2020Article
- Endoscopic evaluation of patients with colonic wall thickening detected ON computed tomography.Acta clinica Croatica · 2020Article
- Systematic review and meta-analysis: does colonic mural thickening on CT correlate with endoscopic findings at colonoscopy?Frontline gastroenterology · 2018Review
- Computed tomography findings of bowel wall thickening: its significance and relationship to endoscopic abnormalities.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the absence of official guidance for the management of colonic wall thickening identified by computed tomography (CT), a common clinical dilemma surrounds the volume of colonoscopies subsequently performed.
methodsTo identify whether colonic wall thickening identified at CT consistently warrants colonoscopy, consecutive colonoscopies performed at Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust in 2008 and recorded as "possible colonic lesion on cross-sectional abdominal CT" in an endoscopic database were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical, radiologic, colonoscopic, and histologic data were obtained from medical records.
resultsOf 4,702 colonoscopies, 94 (2%) had a full data set meeting the inclusion criteria. The primary diagnoses were normal condition (n = 11, 11.7%), adenocarcinoma (n = 25, 26.6%), adenoma (n = 23, 24.5%), diverticular disease (n = 12, 12.8%), nonspecific colitis (n = 6, 6.4%), Crohn's disease (n = 4, 4.3%), and hyperplastic polyp (n = 3, 3.2%). Computed tomography and colonoscopy were concordant for specific pathology in 79.8% of the cases (n = 75). Compared with diagnosis after histology, colonoscopy alone correctly identified specific pathology in 18.1% of the cases (n = 17), and CT alone was correct in 4.3% of the cases (n = 4)), whereas both were incorrect in 3.2% of the cases (n = 3). Computed tomography had a sensitivity of 72.3% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 61.9-80.8%), a specificity of 96.5% (95% CI, 94.9-97.6%), a positive predictive value of 72.3%, and a negative predictive value of 96.5%. In 63.8% of the cases (n = 60), CT identified pathology necessitating further intervention at the time of colonoscopy or afterward, and in 28.7% of the cases (n = 27), CT identified pathology requiring no additional intervention. In the remaining 7.4% of the cases (n = 7), CT detected no new pathology.
conclusionComputed tomography is highly predictive of colonic pathology compared with final outcome after colonoscopy and biopsy. For patients without a pre-existing diagnosis, colonic wall thickening demonstrated at CT warrants further investigation with colonoscopy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21359889What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.