ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2014
Comparison of tomographic and colonoscopic diagnoses in the presence of colonic wall thickening.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Large Bowel Ischemia/Infarction: How to Recognize It and Make Differential Diagnosis? A Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- 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
- Laparoscopic colectomy for transverse colon cancer: comparative analysis of short- and long-term outcomes.International journal of clinical and experimental medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND
objectiveColonic wall thickening is a common condition in a number of benignant and malignant diseases. This study investigated the accuracy of radiological diagnoses in patients diagnosed with colonic wall thickening using multislice CT (MDCT). MATERIALS AND
methodFiles of patients with colonic wall thickening diagnosed with 64-slice MDCT were reviewed retrospectively. The colonoscopy results of these patients were grouped under neoplastic process (cancer and adenomatous polyp), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), diverticulitis and other etiology (nonspecific events, ischemic colitis, solitary rectal ulcer, external compression, secondary to volvulus and radiotherapy), and the results were statistically evaluated. p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
resultsThe study was performed on 505 files (290 males [57.4%], 215 females [42.6%], mean age: 49.15 ± 18.4 years). CT and colonoscopic diagnoses were reviewed and the following CT to colonoscopy ratios was observed: neoplastic process: 44.4% vs. 40.2%; IBD: 42.4% vs. 42.4%; diverticulitis: 4% vs. 4.2%; other etiology: 9.3% vs. 3.2%. Colonoscopy failed to identify pathology in 9.9% of the patients. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of CT were 95.6%, 90.4%, 87.1%, 96.8% and 92.4%, respectively, in detecting neoplastic processes; 97.2%, 97.9%, 97.2%, 97.9% and 97.6%, respectively, in detecting IBD; 90.5%, 99.8%, 95%, 99.6% and 99.4%, respectively, in detecting diverticulitis, and 50%, 96,7%, 62.5%, 94.6% and 92%, respectively, in detecting other etiology.
conclusionWhile, accuracy of 64 slice-CT in diagnosing colonic wall thickenings secondary especially to neoplastic processes, IBD and diverticulitis was significantly higher, but differential diagnosis is challenging in pathologies due to other etiologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25550962PMC4276220W1915818451What 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.