ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2013
Comparison between 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla magnetic resonance enterography for the assessment of disease activity and complications in ileo-colonic Crohn's disease.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Training readers to improve their accuracy in grading Crohn's disease activity on MRI.European radiology · 2014Trial
- Reporting of Magnetic Resonance Enterography in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Results of an Italian Survey.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Diffusion-weighted imaging in Crohn's disease.Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
- Challenges and Strategies to Optimising the Quality of Small Bowel Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Crohn's Disease.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Non-Invasive Imaging for Detection of Colonic Inflammation in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Functional MRI Signature of Chronic Pain Relief From Deep Brain Stimulation in Parkinson Disease Patients.Neurosurgery · 2019Article
- The first joint ESGAR/ ESPR consensus statement on the technical performance of cross-sectional small bowel and colonic imaging.European radiology · 2017Article
- Magnetic resonance enterography has good inter-rater agreement and diagnostic accuracy for detecting inflammation in pediatric Crohn disease.Pediatric radiology · 2017Article
- Diffusion-weighted imaging for evaluating inflammatory activity in Crohn's disease: comparison with histopathology, conventional MRI activity scores, and faecal calprotectin.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2017Article
- [Modern MRI of the small bowell].Der Radiologe · 2015Review
- New Imaging Techniques in the Diagnosis of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases.Viszeralmedizin · 2015Review
- MR imaging of distal ileal and colorectal chronic inflammatory bowel disease--diagnostic accuracy of 1.5 T and 3 T MRI compared to colonoscopy.International journal of colorectal disease · 2014Article
- Diagnostic Value of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient in Assessment of the Activity of Crohn Disease: 1.5 or 3 T.Journal of computer assisted tomographyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can assess disease activity and severity in Crohn's disease (CD). Three-Tesla magnetic resonance (3T) increases signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and reduces time of image acquisition (IAT). Whether 3T increases the accuracy of MRI in CD compared to 1.5T is unknown.
aimWe aimed to compare prospectively the accuracy of 3 and 1.5T in ileo-colonic CD patients.
methodsTwenty-six patients with ileo-colonic CD underwent 1.5 and 3T MR enterography at the same time. Ileocolonoscopy was the reference standard for luminal disease. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of MRI in evaluating six signs of active and complicated disease (localization, thickening, enhancement, strictures, entero-enteric fistulas, and ulcers) were calculated for both techniques.
resultsThree-Tesla resulted as sensitive, specific, and accurate as 1.5T in detecting disease location (accuracy 0.93 vs. 0.86), bowel wall thickening and enhancement (accuracy 0.92 vs. 0.80 for both parameters), strictures (accuracy 0.90 vs. 0.80) and entero-enteric fistulas (accuracy 0.92 vs. 0.92). 3T was superior to 1.5T in detecting ulcers (0.76 vs. 0.42, P < 0.05). SNR resulted higher in 3T, and IAT resulted shorter than 1.5.
conclusionsWe found that 3T is equally accurate as 1.5T in evaluating ileo-colonic CD. Because of superiority in detecting mucosal ulcers, 3T should be preferred in patients with ileo-colonic CD.
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.