Wenhong Liu1, Jincai Liu2, Wenlian Xiao1, Guanghua Luo1. 1. Radiology Department, The first Affiliated Hospital of University of South China, No. 69 Chuanshan Road, Shigu District, Hengyang, 421000 Hunan Province, China. 2. Radiology Department, The first Affiliated Hospital of University of South China, No. 69 Chuanshan Road, Shigu District, Hengyang, 421000 Hunan Province, China. Electronic address: liujincai_hn@sina.com.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) in assessing small bowel (SB) Crohn disease (CD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Elsevier, ScienceDirect, Karger, Web of Science, Wiley Online Library, and Springer for studies in which CT or MRI were evaluated to assess SB CD. Bivariate random effect meta-analytic methods were used to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic curves. Diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) in a per-patient-based analysis were estimated. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was also calculated to measure the diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies involving 913 patients were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference observed between modalities. The diagnostic performances (lnDOR) for CT and MRI also showed no significant difference. Subgroup analysis was performed for MR imaging (MR enteroclysis, MR enterography, and CT enterography). The diagnostic performances (lnDOR) for MR enteroclysis, MR enterography, and CT enterography did not show a significant difference among them. No significant difference was found between these techniques. Deeks funnel plot asymmetry test for publication bias showed that no significant publication bias was observed in this analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that both MRI and CT have high diagnostic accuracy in detecting SB CD. MRI has the potential to be the first-line radiation-free modality for SB CD imaging.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) in assessing small bowel (SB) Crohn disease (CD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Elsevier, ScienceDirect, Karger, Web of Science, Wiley Online Library, and Springer for studies in which CT or MRI were evaluated to assess SB CD. Bivariate random effect meta-analytic methods were used to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic curves. Diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) in a per-patient-based analysis were estimated. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was also calculated to measure the diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies involving 913 patients were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference observed between modalities. The diagnostic performances (lnDOR) for CT and MRI also showed no significant difference. Subgroup analysis was performed for MR imaging (MR enteroclysis, MR enterography, and CT enterography). The diagnostic performances (lnDOR) for MR enteroclysis, MR enterography, and CT enterography did not show a significant difference among them. No significant difference was found between these techniques. Deeks funnel plot asymmetry test for publication bias showed that no significant publication bias was observed in this analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that both MRI and CT have high diagnostic accuracy in detecting SB CD. MRI has the potential to be the first-line radiation-free modality for SB CD imaging.
Authors: Christopher Andrew Lamb; Nicholas A Kennedy; Tim Raine; Philip Anthony Hendy; Philip J Smith; Jimmy K Limdi; Bu'Hussain Hayee; Miranda C E Lomer; Gareth C Parkes; Christian Selinger; Kevin J Barrett; R Justin Davies; Cathy Bennett; Stuart Gittens; Malcolm G Dunlop; Omar Faiz; Aileen Fraser; Vikki Garrick; Paul D Johnston; Miles Parkes; Jeremy Sanderson; Helen Terry; Daniel R Gaya; Tariq H Iqbal; Stuart A Taylor; Melissa Smith; Matthew Brookes; Richard Hansen; A Barney Hawthorne Journal: Gut Date: 2019-09-27 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Husam H Mansour; Yasser S Alajerami; Khaled M Abushab; Ahmed A Najim; Khetam M Quffa Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2022-01-08 Impact factor: 1.568
Authors: Michał Łodyga; Piotr Eder; Magdalena Gawron-Kiszka; Agnieszka Dobrowolska; Maciej Gonciarz; Marek Hartleb; Maria Kłopocka; Ewa Małecka-Wojciesko; Piotr Radwan; Jarosław Reguła; Edyta Zagórowicz; Grażyna Rydzewska Journal: Prz Gastroenterol Date: 2021-11-19
Authors: Maryam Alkhatry; Ahmad Al-Rifai; Vito Annese; Filippos Georgopoulos; Ahmad N Jazzar; Ahmed M Khassouan; Zaher Koutoubi; Rahul Nathwani; Mazen S Taha; Jimmy K Limdi Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2020-11-21 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Tuula Peñate Medina; Jan Philip Kolb; Gereon Hüttmann; Robert Huber; Oula Peñate Medina; Linh Ha; Patricia Ulloa; Naomi Larsen; Arianna Ferrari; Magdalena Rafecas; Mark Ellrichmann; Mariya S Pravdivtseva; Mariia Anikeeva; Jana Humbert; Marcus Both; Jennifer E Hundt; Jan-Bernd Hövener Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Stuart A Taylor; Susan Mallett; Gauraang Bhatnagar; Rachel Baldwin-Cleland; Stuart Bloom; Arun Gupta; Peter J Hamlin; Ailsa L Hart; Antony Higginson; Ilan Jacobs; Sara McCartney; Anne Miles; Charles D Murray; Andrew A Plumb; Richard C Pollok; Shonit Punwani; Laura Quinn; Manuel Rodriguez-Justo; Zainib Shabir; Andrew Slater; Damian Tolan; Simon Travis; Alastair Windsor; Peter Wylie; Ian Zealley; Steve Halligan Journal: Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2018-06-18