Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40580253›Full record

ReviewAbdominal radiology (New York)2026

Role of MRI for assessment of GI bleeding: a pictorial review of indications, technique and performance.

Haresh V Naringrekar, Avneesh Gupta, Jeff L Fidler, Bari Dane, Alexis M Cahalane, Mike L Wells

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Haresh V NaringrekarThomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, USA. hvn001@jefferson.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-1049-4457
Avneesh GuptaBoston University, Boston, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0262-9876
Jeff L FidlerMayo Clinic, Jacksonville, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8275-126X
Bari DaneNew York University, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2205-3309
Alexis M CahalaneMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2380-5819
Mike L WellsMayo Clinic, Jacksonville, USA. Wells.Michael@mayo.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-9411-6087

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The evaluation of patients with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is complicated due to the variety of tests available and the large number of potential causes of bleeding. MRI is less commonly used than computed tomography and endoscopy but it can diagnose disease that causes GI bleeding and serve as a complementary role to other tests. MRI is most often used in the form of magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) to assess patients with suspected bleeding from the small bowel. While CT enterography (CTE) and video capsule endoscopy (VCE) are the more commonly used tests in the setting of GI Bleeding, MRE has characteristics which may make it the more favorable modality for a given patient. Potential advantages of MRE, protocol considerations and the literature delineating its diagnostic performance for detecting pathology which can cause GI bleeding relative to CTE and VCE are reviewed here. MRI is uncommonly used to assess patients with upper GI bleeding, lower GI bleeding and patients with bleeding sites that remain undetected despite a formal evaluation of the GI tract, however it may add value in specific clinical scenarios. These uncommon scenarios and specific clinical examples are also presented to highlight the potential benefits of MRI.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal HemorrhageMagnetic Resonance ImagingCapsule EndoscopyHumansCT EnterographyGI BleedingMR EnterographyMRISmall Bowel MassesSmall BowelVascular Malformations

Identifiers

PMID40580253
PMCPMC12830408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.