Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40467019›Full record

SynthesisClinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association2025

Diagnostic Accuracy of Noninvasive Biomarkers and Imaging for Evaluating Postoperative Recurrence in Crohn's Disease.

Sunil Samnani, Christina M Ray, Priyanka Gill, Levi Stein, Katherine A Buhler, Rupert W Leong, Rebecca L Smith, Peter De Cruz, Gilaad G Kaplan, Cynthia H Seow and 8 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Sunil SamnaniDivision of Gastroenterology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Christina M RayDepartment of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Priyanka GillDepartment of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Levi SteinDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Katherine A BuhlerDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Rupert W LeongGastroenterology and Liver Services, Concord Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Rebecca L SmithDepartment of Gastroenterology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Peter De CruzDepartment of Gastroenterology, Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Medicine, Austin Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Gilaad G KaplanDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Cynthia H SeowDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Cathy LuDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Leonardo GuizzettiMaple Statistical Consulting, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Frank HoentjenDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
John K MarshallDivision of Gastroenterology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Siddharth SinghDivision of Gastroenterology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Remo PanaccioneDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Kerri L NovakDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Christopher MaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: christopher.ma@ucalgary.ca.

Funding

San Diego Biomedical Informatics Education & Research (SABER)T15LM011271 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI SHAMIM NEMATI · 2012 to 2026
$9.7M
Comparative effectiveness research in Hispanic patients with inflammatory bowel diseasesR01DK135937 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI Siddharth Singh · 2024 to 2026
$1.9M
NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK135937NLM NIH HHS T15 LM011271
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND &

aimsColonoscopy is recommended to monitor for Crohn's disease (CD) recurrence after surgical resection. However, repeated colonoscopy is invasive and resource-intensive. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the pooled diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive biomarkers and imaging measures for detecting endoscopic CD recurrence, as compared with colonoscopy.

methodsA systematic review was conducted to January 31, 2024, to identify studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of C-reactive protein (CRP), fecal calprotectin, computed tomography and magnetic resonance enterography, or intestinal ultrasound (IUS) compared with colonoscopy for detecting CD recurrence. Estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were pooled using a random-effects hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model.

resultsA total of 17 studies (N = 1080) evaluated inflammatory biomarkers and 20 studies (N = 1053) assessed imaging measures. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CRP (threshold, 5.0 mg/L) were 0.45 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33-0.58) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.68-0.92), respectively. Fecal calprotectin (threshold, 50 μg/g) was moderately sensitive 0.76 (95% CI, 0.70-0.82) but less specific 0.66 (95% CI, 0.56-0.75). Sensitivity for computed tomography enterography/magnetic resonance enterography and IUS was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.73-0.96) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.75-0.96); specificity was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.43-0.82) and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.52-0.90), respectively. Using optimized radiographic parameters for IUS, specificity was improved to 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-0.93).

conclusionsThe high sensitivity of fecal calprotectin (<50 μg/g) and cross-sectional imaging can help reduce the need for invasive and costly colonoscopy monitoring for CD recurrence after surgery. Applying optimal definitions of sonographic recurrence by IUS parameters may further improve specificity for making therapeutic decisions without endoscopy.

Indexed as

BiomarkersCrohn DiseaseColonoscopyC-Reactive ProteinFecesHumansLeukocyte L1 Antigen ComplexMagnetic Resonance ImagingRecurrenceSensitivity and SpecificityTomography, X-Ray ComputedUltrasonographyBiomarkersC-Reactive ProteinLeukocyte L1 Antigen ComplexBiomarkersColonoscopyCrohn’s DiseaseImagingMonitoringRecurrenceUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID40467019
PMCPMC12354279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.