SynthesisAlimentary pharmacology & therapeutics2026
Review Article: Extending the Frontiers of Intestinal Ultrasound Knowledge, Performance and Expansion.
Synthesis in Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Evolving role of intestinal ultrasound in the evaluation of Crohn's disease: A clinical- radiological perspective.European journal of radiology open · 2026Article
- Optimizing multiple diagnostic modalities for small bowel evaluation: a strategic approach.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2026Review
- Intestinal Ultrasound-Guided Precision Medicine in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Narrative Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Intestinal Ultrasound in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Monitoring Inflammation and Treatment Response.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntestinal ultrasonography (IUS) is increasingly utilised for diagnosing and monitoring IBD. Despite its cost-effectiveness, patient tolerance and suitability for serial bedside assessments, broad adoption has been limited by knowledge gaps in evidence, training and standardisation.
aimsTo summarise key knowledge gaps in the assessment of luminal disease activity, postoperative recurrence, complications, pouch-related disorders and the use of IUS in paediatrics, contrast enhancement, elastography, as well as education, training and future applications involving artificial intelligence.
methodsWe conducted a systematic umbrella review, following PRISMA guidelines, to map the current landscape of high-quality evidence and identify gaps in IUS research relevant to IBD. We searched MEDLINE from inception to February 2025 for systematic reviews, meta-analyses and consensus statements. We extracted data from eligible studies on design, outcomes and identified research gaps. Gaps were categorised by insufficient information, bias, inconsistency or lack of relevant data.
resultsSixty of 507 studies met inclusion criteria. Key gaps included lack of validated and standardised IUS activity indices for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, limited evidence for IUS in post-operative recurrence, paediatric populations and perianal or pouch disease. Data on the use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and elastography were sparse. Small sample sizes, heterogeneous designs and inadequate follow-up limited most studies. Training, competency assessment and integration of artificial intelligence remain underexplored.
conclusionsSizable gaps persist in the evidence base for IUS in IBD. Addressing these gaps through robust, multicentre studies and consensus-driven frameworks is essential to optimise the clinical and research utility of IUS in IBD management.
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.