ArticlePloS one2026
Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic findings for cytomegalovirus reactivation in hospitalized patients with ulcerative colitis.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation is implicated in ulcerative colitis (UC) exacerbation, the efficacy of antiviral treatment in hospitalized patients with UC with suspected CMV infection has not been thoroughly investigated. We aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracies of typical endoscopic findings for CMV reactivation in hospitalized UC patients.
methodsA total of 143 hospitalized cases due to the exacerbation of UC were retrospectively collected. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic findings (punched-out ulcer, round ulcer, girdle ulcer, longitudinal ulcer, and ulcer with wide mucosal defect)for prediction of CMV colitis (histological CMV positivity) and CMV viremia (antigenemia, serum DNA) was assessed. Endoscopic characteristics were compared between patients who initially received anti-viral treatment and who did not receive.
resultsThe diagnostic performance of endoscopic findings for histologically confirmed CMV infection varied by lesion type. Punched-out ulcers demonstrated a sensitivity of 66.7%, specificity of 58.3%, and overall diagnostic accuracy of 59.1%. Longitudinal ulcers showed a sensitivity of 58.3%, specificity of 40.0%, and diagnostic accuracy of 41.7%. In contrast, wide mucosal defects exhibited lower sensitivity (16.6%) but higher specificity (75.0%), with an overall diagnostic accuracy of 69.7%. The same tendencies were found as diagnostic accuracies of endoscopic findings of punched-out ulcers, longitudinal ulcers, and wide mucosal defects for CMV antigenemia positivity was 55.6%, 40.0%, 60.4%, respectively. The specificity of girdle ulcers for positivity of serum DNA test was relatively high (84.8%) while sensitivity was 9.1%. In total, the diagnostic accuracies of endoscopic findings with punched-out, round, girdle, and longitudinal ulcers, and those with wide mucosal defects were 46.9%, 42.9%, 33.7%, 51.0%, and 35.7% for positivity of serum DNA test, respectively. Punched-out ulceration (57% vs.13%; p < 0.001), longitudinal ulceration (70%vs.34%; p < 0.001), and ulceration with wide mucosal defects (31%vs.9%; p < 0.001) were higher with ganciclovir treatment than without.
conclusionEndoscopic findings cannot predict CMV antigenemia or CMV colitis. Therefore, antiviral treatment should not be administered without evidence of CMV reactivation using only endoscopic findings.
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.