Trial reportEuropean radiology2019
Magnetic resonance enterography, small bowel ultrasound and colonoscopy to diagnose and stage Crohn's disease: patient acceptability and perceived burden.
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.
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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- ESR Essentials: diagnosis and assessment of treatment response in patients with luminal Crohn's disease-practice recommendations by the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology.European radiology · 2025Guideline
- Small intestinal contrast ultrasonography (SICUS) in Crohn's disease: Ready for wider implementation?European radiology · 2026Article
- Patient Perspectives of Intestinal Ultrasound in IBD: A Quantitative Evaluation of Satisfaction and Diagnostic Preference.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Current approaches to disease severity and therapy effectiveness assessment in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.World journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Integrating Intestinal Ultrasound in the Personalized Management of IBD.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Magnetic resonance enterography to predict disabling disease in newly diagnosed Crohn's disease: the METRIC-EF multivariable prediction model, multicentre diagnostic inception cohort study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Article
- The Patient Experience with Point-of-Care Intestinal Ultrasound for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Monitoring: A Multicenter Study.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Observational
- Integrating Intestinal Ultrasound to Clinical Trials in Patients With Crohn's Disease: Opportunities and Challenges.Inflammatory bowel diseases · 2025Review
- How to use intestinal ultrasonography in patients with Crohn disease: its role in the assessment of disease activity and disease monitoring in the era of the treat-to-target strategy.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2025Article
- Magnetic Resonance Enterography and Intestinal Ultrasound for the Assessment and Monitoring of Crohn's Disease.Journal of Crohn's & colitis · 2024Review
- Novelties and Perspectives of Intestinal Ultrasound in the Personalised Management of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases-A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Bowel preparation after mid-gut tubing enhanced the efficacy and compliance of magnetic resonance enterography in Crohn's disease: a randomized controlled trial.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Magnetic Resonance Enterography Assessment of Transmural Healing with Vedolizumab in Moderate to Severe Crohn's Disease: Feasibility in the VERSIFY Phase 3 Clinical Trial.Clinical and experimental gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Deep-Learning, Radiomics and Clinic Based Fusion Models for Predicting Response to Infliximab in Crohn's Disease Patients: A Multicentre, Retrospective Study.Journal of inflammation research · 2024Article
- Predicting Treatment Response in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Cross-Sectional Imaging Markers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- The 2023 Impact of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Canada: Access to and Models of Care.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Assessment of Ileal Crohn's Disease Activity by Gastrointestinal Ultrasound and MR Enterography: A Pilot Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Crohn's Disease Patient Experiences and Preferences With Disease Monitoring: An International Qualitative Study.Crohn's & colitis 360 · 2023Article
- Positioning intestinal ultrasound in a UK tertiary centre: significant estimated clinical role and cost savings.Frontline gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What 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.