Loading…

Systematic review with meta‐analysis: magnetic resonance enterography vs. computed tomography enterography for evaluating disease activity in small bowel Crohn's disease

Summary Background Magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) has been proposed as a non‐ionising alternative method to computed tomography enterography (CTE). Some studies have directly compared CTE and MRE in patients with small bowel Crohn's disease (CD) with variable results. Aim To compare the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics 2014-07, Vol.40 (2), p.134-146
Main Authors: Qiu, Y., Mao, R., Chen, B.‐L., Li, X.‐H., He, Y., Zeng, Z.‐R., Li, Z.‐P., Chen, M.‐H.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4935-675f848bc40d242f11fd5e68be1d22f6c73c17d0b472a0baf57a1b5209c640423
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4935-675f848bc40d242f11fd5e68be1d22f6c73c17d0b472a0baf57a1b5209c640423
container_end_page 146
container_issue 2
container_start_page 134
container_title Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics
container_volume 40
creator Qiu, Y.
Mao, R.
Chen, B.‐L.
Li, X.‐H.
He, Y.
Zeng, Z.‐R.
Li, Z.‐P.
Chen, M.‐H.
description Summary Background Magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) has been proposed as a non‐ionising alternative method to computed tomography enterography (CTE). Some studies have directly compared CTE and MRE in patients with small bowel Crohn's disease (CD) with variable results. Aim To compare the overall diagnostic accuracy in assessing the activity of small bowel and complications. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for studies on the accuracy of MRE and CTE, as compared with a pre‐defined reference standard. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, the weighted area under the curve (AUC), incremental yield (IY) and other diagnostic indices were evaluated. Results A total of 290 CD patients from six different studies were analysed. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for MRE in detecting active small bowel CD was 87.9% [95% confidence interval (CI), 81.8–92.5] and 81.2% (95% CI: 71.9–88.4) respectively. The AUC under the summary receiver‐operating characteristic (sROC) of MRE was 0.905 (SEM 0.03, standard error of the mean). Likewise, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of CTE in detecting active small bowel CD was 85.8% (95% CI: 79.2–90.9) and 83.6% (95% CI: 75.3–90.1) with the AUC of 0.898. The AUC of MRE in detecting fistula, stenosis and abscess was 0.936, 0.931 and 0.996, respectively, compared to 0.963, 0.616 and 0.899 of CTE. No statistically significant IY for MRE vs. CTE was found (fixed model, P > 0.05). Conclusions Magnetic resonance enterography has a diagnostic effectiveness comparable to computed tomography enterography, thus may serve as a radiation‐free alternative for evaluation of patients with Crohn's disease.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/apt.12815
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1687685341</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1539465617</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4935-675f848bc40d242f11fd5e68be1d22f6c73c17d0b472a0baf57a1b5209c640423</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0UuO1DAQBmALgZiegQUXQN4ghkV6bMePZHajFi9pJJAY1pHjVLqNnDjYTrey4wjcg1txEgLpBrFA1Kak0qf6Fz9CTyhZ03mu9JDWlBVU3EMrmkuRMZLL-2hFmCyz-Z6fofMYPxFCpCLsITpjvKRMleUKffswxQSdTtbgAHsLB3ywaYc7SPr7l6-6126KNl7jTm97WFT0ve4NYOgTBL8NethNeB_X2PhuGBM0OPnudP8LtT5g2Gs3znn9Fjc2go6AtUl2b9OEbY9jp53DtT-Aw5vgd_3zeHKP0INWuwiPj_sCfXz18m7zJrt99_rt5uY2M7zMRSaVaAte1IaThnHWUto2AmRRA20Ya6VRuaGqITVXTJNat0JpWgtGSiM54Sy_QJfL3yH4zyPEVHU2GnBO9-DHWFFZKFmInNP_U5GXXApJ1UxfLNQEH2OAthqC7XSYKkqqnzVWc43Vrxpn-_T4dqw7aH7LU28zeHYEOhrt2jAXYuMfVwimuJSzu1rcwTqY_p1Y3by_W6J_AFRruNw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1539465617</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Systematic review with meta‐analysis: magnetic resonance enterography vs. computed tomography enterography for evaluating disease activity in small bowel Crohn's disease</title><source>Wiley</source><creator>Qiu, Y. ; Mao, R. ; Chen, B.‐L. ; Li, X.‐H. ; He, Y. ; Zeng, Z.‐R. ; Li, Z.‐P. ; Chen, M.‐H.</creator><creatorcontrib>Qiu, Y. ; Mao, R. ; Chen, B.‐L. ; Li, X.‐H. ; He, Y. ; Zeng, Z.‐R. ; Li, Z.‐P. ; Chen, M.‐H.</creatorcontrib><description>Summary Background Magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) has been proposed as a non‐ionising alternative method to computed tomography enterography (CTE). Some studies have directly compared CTE and MRE in patients with small bowel Crohn's disease (CD) with variable results. Aim To compare the overall diagnostic accuracy in assessing the activity of small bowel and complications. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for studies on the accuracy of MRE and CTE, as compared with a pre‐defined reference standard. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, the weighted area under the curve (AUC), incremental yield (IY) and other diagnostic indices were evaluated. Results A total of 290 CD patients from six different studies were analysed. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for MRE in detecting active small bowel CD was 87.9% [95% confidence interval (CI), 81.8–92.5] and 81.2% (95% CI: 71.9–88.4) respectively. The AUC under the summary receiver‐operating characteristic (sROC) of MRE was 0.905 (SEM 0.03, standard error of the mean). Likewise, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of CTE in detecting active small bowel CD was 85.8% (95% CI: 79.2–90.9) and 83.6% (95% CI: 75.3–90.1) with the AUC of 0.898. The AUC of MRE in detecting fistula, stenosis and abscess was 0.936, 0.931 and 0.996, respectively, compared to 0.963, 0.616 and 0.899 of CTE. No statistically significant IY for MRE vs. CTE was found (fixed model, P &gt; 0.05). Conclusions Magnetic resonance enterography has a diagnostic effectiveness comparable to computed tomography enterography, thus may serve as a radiation‐free alternative for evaluation of patients with Crohn's disease.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0269-2813</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2036</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/apt.12815</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24912799</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Blackwell</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Crohn Disease - diagnosis ; Crohn Disease - diagnostic imaging ; Crohn Disease - pathology ; Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen ; Humans ; Intestine, Small - pathology ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Medical sciences ; Other diseases. Semiology ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Severity of Illness Index ; Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><ispartof>Alimentary pharmacology &amp; therapeutics, 2014-07, Vol.40 (2), p.134-146</ispartof><rights>2014 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>2014 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4935-675f848bc40d242f11fd5e68be1d22f6c73c17d0b472a0baf57a1b5209c640423</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4935-675f848bc40d242f11fd5e68be1d22f6c73c17d0b472a0baf57a1b5209c640423</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=28527466$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24912799$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Qiu, Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mao, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, B.‐L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, X.‐H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>He, Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeng, Z.‐R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Z.‐P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, M.‐H.</creatorcontrib><title>Systematic review with meta‐analysis: magnetic resonance enterography vs. computed tomography enterography for evaluating disease activity in small bowel Crohn's disease</title><title>Alimentary pharmacology &amp; therapeutics</title><addtitle>Aliment Pharmacol Ther</addtitle><description>Summary Background Magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) has been proposed as a non‐ionising alternative method to computed tomography enterography (CTE). Some studies have directly compared CTE and MRE in patients with small bowel Crohn's disease (CD) with variable results. Aim To compare the overall diagnostic accuracy in assessing the activity of small bowel and complications. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for studies on the accuracy of MRE and CTE, as compared with a pre‐defined reference standard. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, the weighted area under the curve (AUC), incremental yield (IY) and other diagnostic indices were evaluated. Results A total of 290 CD patients from six different studies were analysed. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for MRE in detecting active small bowel CD was 87.9% [95% confidence interval (CI), 81.8–92.5] and 81.2% (95% CI: 71.9–88.4) respectively. The AUC under the summary receiver‐operating characteristic (sROC) of MRE was 0.905 (SEM 0.03, standard error of the mean). Likewise, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of CTE in detecting active small bowel CD was 85.8% (95% CI: 79.2–90.9) and 83.6% (95% CI: 75.3–90.1) with the AUC of 0.898. The AUC of MRE in detecting fistula, stenosis and abscess was 0.936, 0.931 and 0.996, respectively, compared to 0.963, 0.616 and 0.899 of CTE. No statistically significant IY for MRE vs. CTE was found (fixed model, P &gt; 0.05). Conclusions Magnetic resonance enterography has a diagnostic effectiveness comparable to computed tomography enterography, thus may serve as a radiation‐free alternative for evaluation of patients with Crohn's disease.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Crohn Disease - diagnosis</subject><subject>Crohn Disease - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Crohn Disease - pathology</subject><subject>Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intestine, Small - pathology</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Other diseases. Semiology</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Severity of Illness Index</subject><subject>Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><issn>0269-2813</issn><issn>1365-2036</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqF0UuO1DAQBmALgZiegQUXQN4ghkV6bMePZHajFi9pJJAY1pHjVLqNnDjYTrey4wjcg1txEgLpBrFA1Kak0qf6Fz9CTyhZ03mu9JDWlBVU3EMrmkuRMZLL-2hFmCyz-Z6fofMYPxFCpCLsITpjvKRMleUKffswxQSdTtbgAHsLB3ywaYc7SPr7l6-6126KNl7jTm97WFT0ve4NYOgTBL8NethNeB_X2PhuGBM0OPnudP8LtT5g2Gs3znn9Fjc2go6AtUl2b9OEbY9jp53DtT-Aw5vgd_3zeHKP0INWuwiPj_sCfXz18m7zJrt99_rt5uY2M7zMRSaVaAte1IaThnHWUto2AmRRA20Ya6VRuaGqITVXTJNat0JpWgtGSiM54Sy_QJfL3yH4zyPEVHU2GnBO9-DHWFFZKFmInNP_U5GXXApJ1UxfLNQEH2OAthqC7XSYKkqqnzVWc43Vrxpn-_T4dqw7aH7LU28zeHYEOhrt2jAXYuMfVwimuJSzu1rcwTqY_p1Y3by_W6J_AFRruNw</recordid><startdate>201407</startdate><enddate>201407</enddate><creator>Qiu, Y.</creator><creator>Mao, R.</creator><creator>Chen, B.‐L.</creator><creator>Li, X.‐H.</creator><creator>He, Y.</creator><creator>Zeng, Z.‐R.</creator><creator>Li, Z.‐P.</creator><creator>Chen, M.‐H.</creator><general>Blackwell</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>C1K</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201407</creationdate><title>Systematic review with meta‐analysis: magnetic resonance enterography vs. computed tomography enterography for evaluating disease activity in small bowel Crohn's disease</title><author>Qiu, Y. ; Mao, R. ; Chen, B.‐L. ; Li, X.‐H. ; He, Y. ; Zeng, Z.‐R. ; Li, Z.‐P. ; Chen, M.‐H.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4935-675f848bc40d242f11fd5e68be1d22f6c73c17d0b472a0baf57a1b5209c640423</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Crohn Disease - diagnosis</topic><topic>Crohn Disease - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Crohn Disease - pathology</topic><topic>Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intestine, Small - pathology</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Other diseases. Semiology</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Severity of Illness Index</topic><topic>Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Qiu, Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mao, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, B.‐L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, X.‐H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>He, Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeng, Z.‐R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Z.‐P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, M.‐H.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><jtitle>Alimentary pharmacology &amp; therapeutics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Qiu, Y.</au><au>Mao, R.</au><au>Chen, B.‐L.</au><au>Li, X.‐H.</au><au>He, Y.</au><au>Zeng, Z.‐R.</au><au>Li, Z.‐P.</au><au>Chen, M.‐H.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Systematic review with meta‐analysis: magnetic resonance enterography vs. computed tomography enterography for evaluating disease activity in small bowel Crohn's disease</atitle><jtitle>Alimentary pharmacology &amp; therapeutics</jtitle><addtitle>Aliment Pharmacol Ther</addtitle><date>2014-07</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>134</spage><epage>146</epage><pages>134-146</pages><issn>0269-2813</issn><eissn>1365-2036</eissn><abstract>Summary Background Magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) has been proposed as a non‐ionising alternative method to computed tomography enterography (CTE). Some studies have directly compared CTE and MRE in patients with small bowel Crohn's disease (CD) with variable results. Aim To compare the overall diagnostic accuracy in assessing the activity of small bowel and complications. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for studies on the accuracy of MRE and CTE, as compared with a pre‐defined reference standard. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, the weighted area under the curve (AUC), incremental yield (IY) and other diagnostic indices were evaluated. Results A total of 290 CD patients from six different studies were analysed. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for MRE in detecting active small bowel CD was 87.9% [95% confidence interval (CI), 81.8–92.5] and 81.2% (95% CI: 71.9–88.4) respectively. The AUC under the summary receiver‐operating characteristic (sROC) of MRE was 0.905 (SEM 0.03, standard error of the mean). Likewise, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of CTE in detecting active small bowel CD was 85.8% (95% CI: 79.2–90.9) and 83.6% (95% CI: 75.3–90.1) with the AUC of 0.898. The AUC of MRE in detecting fistula, stenosis and abscess was 0.936, 0.931 and 0.996, respectively, compared to 0.963, 0.616 and 0.899 of CTE. No statistically significant IY for MRE vs. CTE was found (fixed model, P &gt; 0.05). Conclusions Magnetic resonance enterography has a diagnostic effectiveness comparable to computed tomography enterography, thus may serve as a radiation‐free alternative for evaluation of patients with Crohn's disease.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Blackwell</pub><pmid>24912799</pmid><doi>10.1111/apt.12815</doi><tpages>13</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0269-2813
ispartof Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics, 2014-07, Vol.40 (2), p.134-146
issn 0269-2813
1365-2036
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1687685341
source Wiley
subjects Biological and medical sciences
Crohn Disease - diagnosis
Crohn Disease - diagnostic imaging
Crohn Disease - pathology
Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen
Humans
Intestine, Small - pathology
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Medical sciences
Other diseases. Semiology
Sensitivity and Specificity
Severity of Illness Index
Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
title Systematic review with meta‐analysis: magnetic resonance enterography vs. computed tomography enterography for evaluating disease activity in small bowel Crohn's disease
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T14%3A37%3A01IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Systematic%20review%20with%20meta%E2%80%90analysis:%20magnetic%20resonance%20enterography%20vs.%20computed%20tomography%20enterography%20for%20evaluating%20disease%20activity%20in%20small%20bowel%20Crohn's%20disease&rft.jtitle=Alimentary%20pharmacology%20&%20therapeutics&rft.au=Qiu,%20Y.&rft.date=2014-07&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=134&rft.epage=146&rft.pages=134-146&rft.issn=0269-2813&rft.eissn=1365-2036&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/apt.12815&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1539465617%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4935-675f848bc40d242f11fd5e68be1d22f6c73c17d0b472a0baf57a1b5209c640423%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1539465617&rft_id=info:pmid/24912799&rfr_iscdi=true