ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Comparison of Diagnostic Performance of Ultrasonography and Magnetic Resonance Enterography in the Assessment of Active Bowel Lesions in Patients with Crohn's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determinants of Acute Kidney Injury After Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Patients With Liver Cirrhosis: Retrospective Observational Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Observational
- Comparison of [Molecular imaging and biology · 2026Article
- 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
- Expert consensus on diagnostic guidelines for pediatric inflammatory bowel disease in Japan.Journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Advancing transmural remission as a treatment target in Crohn's disease: The future of tight-control strategy?United European gastroenterology journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic performances of ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) in assessing active bowel lesions in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe searched PubMed and EMBASE for studies in which US and MRE were used to assess active bowel lesions in CD patients. Bivariate random effect meta-analytic methods were used to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity, and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curves. We performed a meta-regression analysis to explore the source of study heterogeneity.
resultsEleven studies involving 752 patients were included. US exhibited a pooled sensitivity of 86% (95% confidence interval (CI) 72-94), pooled specificity of 88% (95% CI 78-94), and HSROC of 0.93 in 10 studies. MRE exhibited a pooled sensitivity of 88% (95% CI 76-95), pooled specificity of 87% (95% CI 73-95), and an HSROC of 0.94 in eight studies. In seven studies comparing the diagnostic performances of US and MRE, the summary sensitivity of US and MRE were 86% (95% CI 65-96, I
conclusionsIn spite of considerable heterogeneity in the included studies, both US and MRE can diagnose active bowel lesions with comparable diagnostic accuracy in patients with CD. The study region, type of US probe, lesion location, investigated outcome for US sensitivity and study population, reference standards, and investigated outcomes for MRE specificity were potential sources of heterogeneity.
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.