Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Diagnosed with US, MR, Scintigraphy, and CT: Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies1

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Diagnosed with US, MR, Scintigraphy, and CT: Meta-analysis of... Purpose: To compare, by performing a meta-analysis, the accuracies of ultrasonography (US), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, scintigraphy, computed tomography (CT), and positron emission tomography (PET) in the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Materials and Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies on the accuracy of US, MR imaging, scintigraphy, CT, and PET, as compared with a predefined reference standard, in the diagnosis of IBD. Sensitivity and specificity estimates were calculated on per-patient and per-bowel-segment bases by using a bivariate random-effects model. Results: Thirty-three studies, from a search that yielded 1406 articles, were included in the final analysis. Mean sensitivity estimates for the diagnosis of IBD on a per-patient basis were high and not significantly different among the imaging modalities (89.7%, 93.0%, 87.8%, and 84.3% for US, MR imaging, scintigraphy, and CT, respectively). Mean per-patient specificity estimates were 95.6% for US, 92.8% for MR imaging, 84.5% for scintigraphy, and 95.1% for CT; the only significant difference in values was that between scintigraphy and US ( P = .009). Mean per-bowel-segment sensitivity estimates were lower: 73.5% for US, 70.4% for MR imaging, 77.3% for scintigraphy, and 67.4% for CT. Mean per-bowel-segment specificity estimates were 92.9% for US, 94.0% for MR imaging, 90.3% for scintigraphy, and 90.2% for CT. CT proved to be significantly less sensitive and specific compared with scintigraphy ( P = .006) and MR imaging ( P = .037) Conclusion: No significant differences in diagnostic accuracy among the imaging techniques were observed. Because patients with IBD often need frequent reevaluation of disease status, use of a diagnostic modality that does not involve the use of ionizing radiation is preferable. Supplemental material: http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/247/1/64/DC1 http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/247/1/64/DC2 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Radiology Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Diagnosed with US, MR, Scintigraphy, and CT: Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies1

Horsthuis, Karin; Bipat, Shandra; Bennink, Roelof J.; Stoker, Jaap
Radiology , Volume 247 (1): 64 – Apr 1, 2008
Download PDF
18 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/radiological-society-of-north-america-inc/inflammatory-bowel-disease-diagnosed-with-us-mr-scintigraphy-and-ct-y62zKzeT8M

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Radiological Society of North America, Inc.
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 by Radiological Society of North America
ISSN
1527-1315
eISSN
0033-8419
DOI
10.1148/radiol.2471070611
pmid
18372465
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose: To compare, by performing a meta-analysis, the accuracies of ultrasonography (US), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, scintigraphy, computed tomography (CT), and positron emission tomography (PET) in the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Materials and Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies on the accuracy of US, MR imaging, scintigraphy, CT, and PET, as compared with a predefined reference standard, in the diagnosis of IBD. Sensitivity and specificity estimates were calculated on per-patient and per-bowel-segment bases by using a bivariate random-effects model. Results: Thirty-three studies, from a search that yielded 1406 articles, were included in the final analysis. Mean sensitivity estimates for the diagnosis of IBD on a per-patient basis were high and not significantly different among the imaging modalities (89.7%, 93.0%, 87.8%, and 84.3% for US, MR imaging, scintigraphy, and CT, respectively). Mean per-patient specificity estimates were 95.6% for US, 92.8% for MR imaging, 84.5% for scintigraphy, and 95.1% for CT; the only significant difference in values was that between scintigraphy and US ( P = .009). Mean per-bowel-segment sensitivity estimates were lower: 73.5% for US, 70.4% for MR imaging, 77.3% for scintigraphy, and 67.4% for CT. Mean per-bowel-segment specificity estimates were 92.9% for US, 94.0% for MR imaging, 90.3% for scintigraphy, and 90.2% for CT. CT proved to be significantly less sensitive and specific compared with scintigraphy ( P = .006) and MR imaging ( P = .037) Conclusion: No significant differences in diagnostic accuracy among the imaging techniques were observed. Because patients with IBD often need frequent reevaluation of disease status, use of a diagnostic modality that does not involve the use of ionizing radiation is preferable. Supplemental material: http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/247/1/64/DC1 http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/247/1/64/DC2

Journal

Radiology – Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

Published: Apr 1, 2008

There are no references for this article.