ArticleIntestinal research2025
Knowledge and acceptability of the Lémann Index as a tool to measure disease progression and bowel damage in Crohn's disease: results from an international survey.
Article in Intestinal research, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsCrohn's disease (CD) progresses to structural bowel damage (SBD). The Lémann Index (LI) captures stricture extent/severity, penetrating disease and surgery as a SBD score, and is earmarked for future CD modification trials. Understanding knowledge gaps and perceived barriers is critical to wider adoption.
methodsA multinational, cross-sectional study was distributed through a survey link (REDCap, Research Electronic Data Capture) to gastrointestinal professional societies with snowball sampling using 23 questionnaire items in 5 sections to determine SBD and LI knowledge, and LI acceptability. Factors associated with acceptability and perception were evaluated.
resultsOf the 107 respondents, 49 (45.8%) were female; 87 (81.3%) were from Europe. Most were inflammatory bowel disease specialists (n = 80, 74.8%) or general gastroenterologists (n = 22, 20.6%), managing > 40 CD patients per month (n = 35, 32.7%). A total of 98 (91.6%) knew about SBD; "very important" rating for clinical trials and clinical practice was 56.1% and 41.4%, respectively. A 39.3% describe LI scoring as "very difficult" or "difficult"; 33.6% reported "significant" or "a lot" of effort. Acceptability (composite scores of > 36) were significantly associated with respondents who had received LI training (P<0.001). Automated methods, intestinal ultrasound and evidence of benefit would encourage LI use in clinical trials, while additional time and automated methods would promote use in clinical practice. The top 3 perceived adoption barriers were: lack of time (60.7%), limited automated methods (47.7%) and need for dedicated radiologists (38.3%).
conclusionsMost respondents had baseline knowledge of SBD. The LI was perceived as important for advancing future CD research and care. More training and automation will facilitate LI adoption.
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.