Title |
Detecting inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease — how does ultrasound compare to magnetic resonance enterography using standardised scoring systems?
|
---|---|
Published in |
Pediatric Radiology, April 2018
|
DOI | 10.1007/s00247-018-4084-1 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Joy L. Barber, Alexsandra Zambrano-Perez, Øystein E. Olsen, Fevronia Kiparissi, Mila Baycheva, Daniela Knaflez, Neil Shah, Tom A. Watson |
Abstract |
Magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) is the current gold standard for imaging in inflammatory bowel disease, but ultrasound (US) is a potential alternative. To determine whether US is as good as MRE for the detecting inflamed bowel, using a combined consensus score as the reference standard. We conducted a retrospective cohort study in children and adolescents <18 years with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) at a tertiary and quaternary centre. We included children who underwent MRE and US within 4 weeks. We scored MRE using the London score and US using a score adapted from the METRIC (MR Enterography or Ultrasound in Crohn's Disease) trial. Four gastroenterologists assessed an independent clinical consensus score. A combined consensus score using the imaging and clinical scores was agreed upon and used as the reference standard to compare MRE with US. We included 53 children. At a whole-patient level, MRE scores were 2% higher than US scores. We used Lin coefficient to assess inter-observer variability. The repeatability of MRE scores was poor (Lin 0.6). Agreement for US scoring was substantial (Lin 0.95). There was a significant positive correlation between MRE and clinical consensus scores (Spearman's rho = 0.598, P=0.0053) and US and clinical consensus scores (Spearman's rho = 0.657, P=0.0016). US detects as much clinically significant bowel disease as MRE. It is possible that MRE overestimates the presence of disease when using a scoring system. This study demonstrates the feasibility of using a clinical consensus reference standard in paediatric IBD imaging studies. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 11% |
Researcher | 3 | 11% |
Other | 3 | 11% |
Student > Bachelor | 3 | 11% |
Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
Other | 6 | 22% |
Unknown | 6 | 22% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 48% |
Computer Science | 2 | 7% |
Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
Psychology | 1 | 4% |
Engineering | 1 | 4% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 9 | 33% |