ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2022
Does contrast-enhanced computed tomography raise awareness in the diagnosis of the invisible side of celiac disease in adults?
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2022. 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, 1 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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the diagnosis and determine major and minor criteria of celiac disease (CD) with the malabsorption patterns (MABP) in the small intestine and colon on computed tomography (CT) and additional CT findings.
methodsThis retrospective study was conducted with 116 patients diagnosed with CD, 14 CD patients recovering with treatment, and 35 control patients with non-CD. All patients had CT examinations and histopathological diagnoses. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy values of each CT finding defined in the literature were statistically evaluated. According to the patient and control groups, the numerical values of the findings and the sensitivity and specificity values were measured according to this cut-off value. The distribution of CT findings according to pathological Marsh data was evaluated in CD patients.
resultsSensitivity and specificity were found to be higher in small bowel MABP findings, mesenteric hypervascularity, and increased SMV/aorta diameter. There was a numerically significant difference in MDCT findings between the control and pathological Marsh groups. In the ROC analysis performed in terms of the total numerical values of each MDCT finding observed between the groups, it was found that there were more than 7 MDCT findings, 100% sensitivity, and 92% specificity. The presence of four major and three minor criteria or three major and four minor criteria were considered significant.
conclusionsBeing aware of CT findings below the iceberg that may suggest CD in abdominal CT examinations performed in patients with atypical clinical and malabsorption findings or other nonspecific findings may prevent diagnostic delay and unnecessary procedures.
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.