ReviewCureus2024
The Current Role of Imaging in the Diagnosis of Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Detection of Its Complications: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. 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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) encompasses complex gastrointestinal (GI) conditions, primarily Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), requiring precise imaging for effective diagnosis and management of complications. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the current role of imaging modalities in diagnosing IBD and detecting related complications. The review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We performed a literature search using text words and controlled vocabulary applying Boolean operators "AND," "OR," with various combinations on databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. The search targeted open-access articles involving humans, with full-text available, and published in the English Language from 2005 to 2024. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias (RoB) checklist. Our search process identified 127 records from Cochrane (39), Embase (29), and PubMed (59). After removing 98 irrelevant records, 29 underwent further screening. Five were excluded as they involved irrelevant problems or outcomes, leaving us with 24 reports with full text, all of which were accessible. Following the eligibility assessment, two more reports were excluded due to inaccessibility, and 22 studies were included in the final analysis. The risk of bias and methodological quality assessment revealed that out of 22 studies analyzed, five (23%) had a high risk of bias, while 13 (59%) were classified as moderate risk, and four (18%) showed low risk. This distribution highlights a predominance of moderate-risk studies in research on imaging in IBD, emphasizing the need for enhanced study designs in future investigations. Our findings revealed the varying effectiveness of imaging modalities in diagnosing complications of CD and UC. Magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) stands out as the preferred method for CD due to its high sensitivity and noninvasive nature. In contrast, colonoscopy remains the gold standard for UC, providing direct visualization of mucosal lesions. While techniques like ultrasound and capsule endoscopy offer valuable insights, they have limitations that may affect their utility in certain cases.
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.