ReviewCureus2026
Diagnostic Accuracy of Intestinal Ultrasound for Detecting Postoperative Recurrence in Crohn's Disease: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic performance of intestinal ultrasound (IUS) for detecting postoperative recurrence (POR) in Crohn's disease (CD) using ileocolonoscopy as the reference standard. A comprehensive search of major databases identified 12 prospective cohort studies, including 730 patients who underwent ileocolonic or ileocecal resection. Pooled analysis demonstrated that IUS has high diagnostic accuracy, with a sensitivity of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.78-0.93), a specificity of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.77-0.93), and an overall area under the curve of 0.91, indicating strong discriminative ability. The diagnostic odds ratio was 33.91, further supporting good test performance. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings, although substantial heterogeneity was observed, particularly for sensitivity. Despite variability in IUS definitions and moderate-to-serious risk of bias across studies, the results consistently showed good correlation with endoscopic findings. Potential publication bias was detected for sensitivity but not specificity. Overall, IUS appears to be a reliable, noninvasive tool for detecting POR in CD and may help reduce reliance on routine ileocolonoscopy. However, operator dependence and methodological heterogeneity should be considered when interpreting its clinical utility.
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.