ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
Optimization of dual-energy CT enterography parameters for the assessment of Crohn's disease activity: a retrospective study.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDiscuss the selection of imaging parameters in dual-energy CT enterography (DECTE) assessment for patients with Crohn's disease (CD) at different activity levels.
methodThis study analyzed data from 55 CD patients who had DECTE and endoscopy from 2020 to 2022. Patients were divided into moderate-severe (Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity (CDEIS) ≥ 10) and remission-mild (CDEIS < 10) groups. Imaging indicators such as intestinal wall thickness, iodine concentration (IC), and lesion wall enhancement (ΔHu) were compared, and their correlations with CDEIS scores were analyzed. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate DECTE's effectiveness in assessing CD activity with multiparameter versus single-parameter methods. Decision curve analysis (DCA) and calibration curve analysis (CCA) were applied to assess patient benefits from the multiparameter assessment model.
resultsIC, ΔHu, wall thickness, and comb sign varied significantly between groups (P < 0.05). In the moderate-severe group, ΔHu correlated more strongly with CDEIS than in the remission-mild group. Lesion IC also highly correlated with CDEIS in both groups. DECTE, using multiparameter assessment, achieved an AUC of 0.933(95% CI 0.982-0.999, sensitivity was 0.906, specificity was 0.870) for diagnosing moderate to severe CD activity, surpassing single parameters assessment. CCA and DCA showed that multiparameter assessment had good calibration and net clinical benefits.
conclusionCompared to moderate-severe CD, the assessment of disease activity in patients with mild-moderate CD was more important using DECTE. A multiparameter assessment can enhance the diagnostic efficacy of DECT for patients with CD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39613873What 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.