ArticleThe British journal of radiology2025
A British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology multi-centre audit of imaging investigations in inflammatory bowel disease.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic Review: Ultrasound Goes Echo-Decarbonising Inflammatory Bowel Disease Care Through Intestinal Ultrasound.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2025Pooled it
- Observational
- Examining attitudes to intestinal ultrasound in inflammatory bowel disease: a national survey of Australian gastroenterologists.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Upper Gastrointestinal Crohn's Disease: Shedding Light on the Obscure L4 Classification Meaning.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate current UK practice for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) imaging against recommendations from published international literature.
methodsA retrospective multi-centre audit was undertaken evaluating imaging modalities, protocols, and pathways used to investigate IBD both in outpatient and inpatient settings during January-December 2022. Reporting practices and training provisions were also recorded.
resultsForty-one centres contributed: 35 centres provided complete data, whereas 6 centres provided incomplete data. Magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) was the most common modality for small bowel imaging across UK centres, comprising 13 099/18 784 (69.7%) investigations. There was regional variability in other modalities used, with 5 centres performing 81% of all intestinal ultrasound and 3 centres performing 65% of all small bowel follow-through. Compared with outpatients, inpatients with suspected IBD were significantly more likely to be imaged with techniques imparting ionising radiation whether scanned either in-hours (p = 0.005) or out-of-hours (p < 0.001). Non-ionising radiation imaging modalities were significantly less available out-of-hours (p < 0.0001). Sequences included in MRE protocols were variable. Disparity in imaging follow-up for patients prescribed biologic therapies was observed.
conclusionsConsiderable variation in UK IBD imaging practice has been identified. Improvements must be made to reduce the regional inequality of patient access to different imaging modalities and decrease reliance on ionising radiation for inpatients. Further research to standardise and optimise imaging pathways should be undertaken to improve uniformity, with emphasis placed on training and education. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This multi-centre audit showed considerable IBD imaging practice variation between UK centres, particularly for imaging modalities used between inpatient and outpatient groups and in-hours versus out-of-hours.
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.