Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22940683›Full record

ArticleDer Radiologe2012

[Radiological diagnostics of the small bowel].

J Hansmann, J Eichholz

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Radiologe, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

J HansmannDiagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Theresienkrankenhaus Mannheim, Deutschland. j.hansmann@theresienkrankenhaus.de
J Eichholz
Diabetesinstitut Heidelberg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The barium meal with plain X-ray films of the small intestine has for decades been the undisputed gold standard in imaging of the small intestine. More recently, X-rays and fluoroscopy with an overall accuracy of 73% have been replaced by multislice computed tomography (MSCT) or modern magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Ultrasound is suitable for the orienting investigation of the small intestine in the context of general abdominal sonography as well as for dedicated examinations with a sensitivity of 67-96% and a specificity up to 97%. The endoscopic examinations of the small bowel, such as video capsule endoscopy and double-balloon enteroscopy are expensive and time-consuming techniques, which provide valuable information in special indications. Other than with the stomach or colon, the diagnostics of primary small intestine tumors plays a relatively subordinate role due to the low incidence of 3-5% of all gastrointestinal (GI) neoplasms but with a high sensitivity of 84% and a specificity of up to 97% for computed tomography (CT) and MRI. Predominant questions are those concerning ileus or the diagnostics of passage disturbances after preceding operations, to depict bowel obstructions, adhesions or the involvement of the small bowel in peritoneal carcinomatosis. The sensitivity per lesion in the initial evaluation of Crohn's disease (CD) is 47-68% for capsule endoscopy, 43% for MRI and 21% for CT enterography. In cases of known CD, the sensitivity is 70% for capsule endoscopy and 79% for MRI. A further indication is the evaluation of acute or occult gastrointestinal bleeding.

Indexed as

HumansIntestinal DiseasesIntestine, SmallMagnetic Resonance ImagingTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID22940683
OpenAlexW75869617

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.