Observational studyDigestive diseases and sciences2018
Role of Positron Emission Tomography in Assessing Disease Activity in Ulcerative Colitis: Comparison with Biomarkers.
Observational study in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2018. 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.
- Comparison ofThe British journal of radiology · 2020Trial
- Hybrid Molecular Imaging Using PET/CT and PET/MRI in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Current Applications, Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Review
- Development and Validation of Predictive Models for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Diagnosis: A Machine Learning and Nomogram-Based Approach.Journal of inflammation research · 2025Article
- 18F-FDG-PET and other imaging modalities in the diagnosis and management of inflammatory bowel disease.American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Review
- Diagnostic Performance of Simultaneous [Journal of clinical medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDisease activity in ulcerative colitis (UC) is best assessed clinically by Mayo score. 18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computerized tomography (FDG PET-CT) is a noninvasive imaging technique to assess extent, disease activity and response to treatment of UC, especially in high risk population or patients unwilling for endoscopy.
aimsWe conducted a prospective observational study with the aim of assessing and correlating UC disease activity by clinical criteria, endoscopy, histology, serum and fecal biomarkers, and FDG PET-CT.
methodsSixty eligible patients of UC were enrolled into three groups (26 remission, 24 moderate and 10 severe activity) as per Mayo score and FDG PET-CT was performed within 72 h of colonoscopy. ESR, CRP, and fecal calprotectin (FC) levels were determined for all patients.
resultsOf 60 enrolled patients, 10% patients had proctitis, 43.3% left-sided colitis, and 46.7% extensive colitis. ESR, CRP, FC levels, and rectal PET activity were significantly higher in groups with moderate and severe disease activity. Rectal PET activity showed a significant correlation with the Mayo score (k = 0.465, p < 0.001), endoscopic subscore (k = 0.526, p < 0.001), histological score (k = 0.496, p < 0.001), and FC (k = 0.279, p = 0.031). Extent evaluation by FDG PET-CT and colonoscopy showed a significant correlation (k = 0.582, p < 0.001). Besides, FDG PET-CT identified sacroiliitis in one patient and adenocarcinoma in one patient.
conclusionFDG PET-CT is a reliable noninvasive tool for detection of disease activity, extent in UC with good correlation with Mayo score, histology and fecal biomarkers and accurate predictor of disease remission.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29564671What 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.