Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26507861›Full record

SynthesisJournal of Crohn's & colitis2016

Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound for Detection of Crohn's Disease Activity: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Zbigniew Serafin, Marcin Białecki, Agnieszka Białecka, Luca Maria Sconfienza, Maria Kłopocka

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of Crohn's & colitis, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Zbigniew SerafinDepartment of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Collegium Medicum, Bydgoszcz, Poland serafin@cm.umk.pl.
Marcin BiałeckiDepartment of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Collegium Medicum, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Agnieszka BiałeckaDepartment of Dermatology, Sexually Transmitted Diseases and Immunodermatology, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Collegium Medicum, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Luca Maria SconfienzaDepartment of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato and Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy.
Maria KłopockaChair of Vascular Diseases and Internal Medicine, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Collegium Medicum, Bydgoszcz, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsReports on imaging of active Crohn's disease (aCD) using contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) are encouraging. However, the statistical power of most published papers is limited due to the small size of the patient groups included. This study was performed to verify the diagnostic value of CEUS in detecting aCD.

methodsA systematic literature search was performed by two independent reviewers for articles on the test characteristics of CEUS for the identification of aCD. The quality of the analysed studies was evaluated using a quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2). Pooling was performed using a diagnostic random-effect model and bivariate analysis.

resultsEight articles were included in the final analysis, with a total of 332 patients. There was no significant publication bias. Significant heterogeneity was found regarding CEUS methodology and sonographic definitions of aCD. In a bivariate analysis, pooled sensitivity was 0.94 (95% CI 0.87-0.97) and pooled specificity was 0.79 (95% CI 0.67-0.88). Spearman correlation statistics presented no significant diagnostic threshold effect (r = 0.12, p > 0.9). Subgroup analysis showed that relative intestine wall enhancement had the highest diagnostic value (area under the curve 94%), while the presence of enhancement and analysis of the slope were less useful (area under the curve 91 and 90%, respectively).

conclusionsCEUS presents good sensitivity and moderate specificity in the detection of the aCD. Large-scale randomized trials with quantitative evaluation of CEUS images are necessary to promote this technique in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaMicrobubblesCrohn DiseaseDisease ProgressionHumansModels, StatisticalSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonographyContrast MediaCEUSCrohn’s diseasemeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID26507861
PMCPMC4957465

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.