ArticleThe British journal of radiology2012
MRI enterography: what is the clinical impact of unsuspected extra-enteric findings?
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role of magnetic resonance in bowel pathologies: Beyond inflammatory bowel disease.World journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Incidental findings during head and neck MRI screening in 1717 patients with temporomandibular disorders.Oral radiology · 2019Article
- Unexpected Findings in Magnetic Resonance Enterography and Their Clinical Significance.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To define the incidence and nature of incidental extra-enteric findings on magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) following the introduction of a new clinical service, to assess the volume of additional tests generated and to gauge the potential of MRE to reduce the need for subsequent abdominal imaging. The imaging and patient records of 500 consecutive patients undergoing MRE at a single institution were reviewed. Note was made of patient demographics, any extra-enteric findings reported on the MRE, whether additional tests were recommended by the reporting radiologists to clarify or follow up extra-enteric findings and whether the patients underwent additional abdominal or pelvic imaging in the 4 months after the MRE. 64% of the cohort was male. The mean age was 45 years (range 11-80 years). Overall 190 (38%) underwent MRE for assessment of known Crohn's disease and 310 (62%) for other indications, such as abdominal pain and anaemia. 26 non-bowel-related extra-enteric abnormalities were noted on the MRE report in just 15 patients (3%), and a total of 6 additional tests were recommended by the reporting radiologist. 13 patients (2.6%) underwent some form of abdominal imaging within 4 months of the MRE. None of these additional investigations revealed any abnormality missed on the MRE. Extra-enteric findings are unlikely to have a significant impact on healthcare resources after the introduction of an MRE service.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.