Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29582131›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology2018

The role of imaging in the management of necrotising enterocolitis: a multispecialist survey and a review of the literature.

Margareta Ahle, Hans G Ringertz, Erika Rubesova

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Necrotizing enterocolitis.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2026
    Review
  7. [Ultrasound diagnosis of necrotizing enterocolitis in neonates].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2026
    Article
  8. Is necrotizing enterocolitis associated with the 896A/G polymorphism in the toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) gene?Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

3 authors.

Margareta AhleDepartment of Radiology and Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, 581 85, Linköping, Sweden. Margareta.Ahle@regionostergotland.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5176-4949
Hans G RingertzDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Erika RubesovaDepartment of Radiology, Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate current practices and perceptions of imaging in necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) according to involved specialists, put them in the context of current literature, and identify needs for further investigation.

methodsTwo hundred two neonatologists, paediatric surgeons, and radiologists answered a web-based questionnaire about imaging in NEC at their hospitals. The results were descriptively analysed, using proportion estimates with 95% confidence intervals.

resultsThere was over 90% agreement on the value of imaging for confirmation of the diagnosis, surveillance, and guidance in decisions on surgery as well as on abdominal radiography as the first-choice modality and the most important radiographic signs. More variation was observed regarding some indications for surgery and the use of some ultrasonographic signs. Fifty-eight per cent stated that ultrasound was used for NEC at their hospital. Examination frequency, often once daily or more but with considerable variations, and projections used in AR were usually decided individually rather than according to fixed schedules. Predicting the need of surgery was regarded more important than formal staging.

conclusionDespite great agreement on the purposes of imaging in NEC and the most important radiographic signs of the disease, there was considerable diversity in routines, especially regarding examination frequency and the use of ultrasound. Apart from continuing validation of ultrasound, important objectives for future studies include definition of the supplementary roles of both imaging modalities in relation to other diagnostic parameters and evaluation of various imaging routines in relation to timing of surgery, complications, and mortality rate. KEY POINTS: • Imaging is an indispensable tool in the management of necrotising enterocolitis • Predicting the need of surgery is regarded more important than formal staging • There is great consensus on important signs of NEC on abdominal radiography • There is more uncertainty regarding the role of ultrasound • Individualised management is preferred over standardised diagnostic algorithms.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDiagnosis, DifferentialEnterocolitis, NecrotizingEuropeHumansInfant, NewbornProfessional PracticeRadiography, AbdominalSurveys and QuestionnairesUltrasonographyUnited StatesAbdominal radiographyEnterocolitis, necrotisingProfessional practiceSurveys and questionnairesUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID29582131
PMCPMC6096607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.