Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30128615›Full record

Trial reportEuropean radiology2019

Magnetic resonance enterography, small bowel ultrasound and colonoscopy to diagnose and stage Crohn's disease: patient acceptability and perceived burden.

Anne Miles, Gauraang Bhatnagar, Steve Halligan, Arun Gupta, Damian Tolan, Ian Zealley, Stuart A Taylor, METRIC investigators

Abstract readClinical TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. The 2023 Impact of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Canada: Access to and Models of Care.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2023
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

8 authors.

Anne MilesDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, Malet Street, London, WC1E 7HX, UK.
Gauraang BhatnagarCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London, Charles Bell House, 43-45, Foley Street, London, W1W 7TS, UK.
Steve HalliganCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London, Charles Bell House, 43-45, Foley Street, London, W1W 7TS, UK.
Arun GuptaIntestinal Imaging Centre, St Mark's Hospital, Harrow, UK.
Damian TolanDepartment of Radiology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Beckett Street, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK.
Ian ZealleyDepartment of Radiology, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, Scotland, DD1 9SY, UK.
Stuart A TaylorCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London, Charles Bell House, 43-45, Foley Street, London, W1W 7TS, UK. stuart.taylor1@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6765-8806
METRIC investigators

Funding

Department of Health 11/23/01Department of Health PDF-2017-10-081Health Technology Assessment Programme 11/23/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare patient acceptability and burden of magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and ultrasound (US) to each other, and to other enteric investigations, particularly colonoscopy.

methods159 patients (mean age 38, 94 female) with newly diagnosed or relapsing Crohn's disease, prospectively recruited to a multicentre diagnostic accuracy study comparing MRE and US completed an experience questionnaire on the burden and acceptability of small bowel investigations between December 2013 and September 2016. Acceptability, recovery time, scan burden and willingness to repeat the test were analysed using the Wilcoxon signed rank and McNemar tests; and group differences in scan burden with Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests.

resultsOverall, 128 (88%) patients rated MRE as very or fairly acceptable, lower than US (144, 99%; p < 0.001), but greater than colonoscopy (60, 60%; p < 0.001). MRE recovery time was longer than US (p < 0.001), but shorter than colonoscopy (p < 0.001). Patients were less willing to undergo MRE again than US (127 vs. 133, 91% vs. 99%; p = 0.012), but more willing than for colonoscopy (68, 75%; p = 0.017). MRE generated greater burden than US (p < 0.001), although burden scores were low. Younger age and emotional distress were associated with greater MRE and US burden. Higher MRE discomfort was associated with patient preference for US (p = 0.053). Patients rated test accuracy as more important than scan discomfort.

conclusionsMRE and US are well tolerated. Although MRE generates greater burden, longer recovery and is less preferred than US, it is more acceptable than colonoscopy. Patients, however, place greater emphasis on diagnostic accuracy than burden. KEY POINTS: • MRE and US are rated as acceptable by most patients and superior to colonoscopy. • MRE generates significantly greater burden and longer recovery times than US, particularly in younger patients and those with high levels of emotional distress. • Most patients prefer the experience of undergoing US than MRE; however, patients rate test accuracy as more importance than scan burden.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionAdolescentAdultColonoscopyCrohn DiseaseFemaleHumansIntestine, SmallMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedRecurrenceReproducibility of ResultsSeverity of Illness IndexUltrasonographyCrohn diseaseMagnetic resonance imagingPatient preferencePatient satisfactionUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID30128615
PMCPMC6510862

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.