ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2021
Evaluation of celiac disease with uniphasic and multiphasic dynamic MDCT imaging.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cross-sectional imaging: current status and future potential in adult celiac disease.European radiology · 2024Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAn analysis of dynamic contrast MRI has been shown to provide valuable information about disease activity in Crohn's disease and Celiac disease (CD). However, there are no reports of dynamic multi-detector computer tomography use in patients with CD. The aim of this study is to determine and compare the perfusion dynamics of the patients treated with control subjects and the perfusion dynamics in patients with untreated CD, using dynamic contrast in MDCT and compare studying contrast dynamics in Marsh types as well.
methodsIn this retrospective study, uniphasic and multiphasic MDCT, untreated, treated, incompatible CD patients and healthy control group duodenum wall thickness and HU values were compared in terms of patient groups and modified Marsh types.
resultIn dynamic CT, the highest contrast curve was observed in the untreated group and Marsh type 1. While the contrast curve of the untreated and non-compliant patients increased rapidly and showed wash out, the type 4 contrast curve was observed, whereas the treated and control group slowly increased type 5 contrast curve. In the contrast-enhanced CT in the venous phase, in the ROC analysis between Marsh 1-2 and Marsh 3a-c, the sensitivity was 97% and the specificity was 87% when the cut off was taken as 4.45 mm for wall thickness (p: 0.005).
conclusionContrast-enhanced single-phase and dynamic MDCT imaging in CD patients may be useful in evaluating the inflammatory and pathological process in the small intestine.
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.