ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
Diagnostic accuracy of bowel ultrasonography in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of Intestinal Ultrasound for IBD Care: A Practical Approach.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- The Diagnostic Utility of Biochemical Markers and Intestinal Ultrasound Compared with Endoscopy in Patients with Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bowel ultrasonography (BUS) is emerging as a promising noninvasive tool for assessing disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of BUS in IBD patients against the gold standard diagnostic method, standard colonoscopy. Methods: Major databases were searched from inception to May 2023 for studies on BUS diagnostic accuracy in IBD. Outcomes of interest were pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV), and negative (NPV) predictive values. Endoscopic confirmation served as ground truth. Standard meta-analysis methods with a random-effects model and Results: Twenty studies (1094 patients) were included in the final analysis. The majority (75%) of studies considered bowel wall thickness >3 mm as abnormal. Endoscopic evaluation was performed between days 3 and 180. The pooled diagnostic accuracy of BUS in IBD was 66% (95% confidence interval [CI] 58-72%; Conclusion: The high diagnostic accuracy of BUS in detecting bowel wall inflammation suggests utilizing regular BUS as the primary modality, with subsequent consideration of SICUS if clinically warranted.
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.