ArticlePediatric radiology2017
Colonic inflammation in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease: detection with magnetic resonance enterography.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Imaging of Ulcerative Colitis: The Role of Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Colonic involvement in inflammatory bowel diseases: spotlight on the role of magnetic resonance enterography.Japanese journal of radiology · 2023Article
- 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
- Advances in Diagnostic Imaging in Pediatric Gastroenterology.Current gastroenterology reports · 2020Review
- Fast Magnetic Resonance Enterography Protocol for the Evaluation of Patients with Crohn's Disease: A Pilot Study.Journal of clinical imaging science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColonic involvement in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease is common. Magnetic resonance (MR) enterography is considered the best imaging modality for pediatric inflammatory bowel disease evaluation. It is unclear whether the lack of a dedicated large bowel preparation prevents a reliable colonic assessment.
objectiveTo determine the diagnostic performance of standard MR enterography in detecting and grading colonic inflammatory activity. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively evaluated children who underwent both MR enterography and ileocolonoscopy with biopsies <4 weeks apart. Two radiologists independently reviewed MR examinations and quantified inflammation in each of the five colonic segments using a standardized MR score system. Findings were compared with histological examination of the corresponding segment. Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, Jonckheere-Terpstra and Bland-Altman statistics were used.
resultsOne hundred seventy-five segments from 37 examinations were included. MR enterography diagnostic performance for inflammation was as follows: sensitivity 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 90-97%), specificity: 64% (95% CI: 57-71%). A significant positive correlation was found between MR score and inflammatory activity histologically graded (P<0.001, Jonckheere-Terpstra test). The interobserver agreement was good (mean difference between MR enterography scores was -0.03; limits of agreement -2.8 to 2.7).
conclusionStandard MR enterography is sensitive for the detection of actively inflamed colonic segments. MR enterography might provide useful information for guiding biopsies and its role as an alternative to ileocolonoscopy in monitoring colonic disease activity in children should be further investigated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28417181What 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.