Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2019 Mar;29(3):1083-1093.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5661-2. Epub 2018 Aug 20.

Magnetic resonance enterography, small bowel ultrasound and colonoscopy to diagnose and stage Crohn's disease: patient acceptability and perceived burden

Collaborators, Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Magnetic resonance enterography, small bowel ultrasound and colonoscopy to diagnose and stage Crohn's disease: patient acceptability and perceived burden

Anne Miles et al. Eur Radiol. 2019 Mar.

Abstract

Objectives: To compare patient acceptability and burden of magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and ultrasound (US) to each other, and to other enteric investigations, particularly colonoscopy.

Methods: 159 patients (mean age 38, 94 female) with newly diagnosed or relapsing Crohn's disease, prospectively recruited to a multicentre diagnostic accuracy study comparing MRE and US completed an experience questionnaire on the burden and acceptability of small bowel investigations between December 2013 and September 2016. Acceptability, recovery time, scan burden and willingness to repeat the test were analysed using the Wilcoxon signed rank and McNemar tests; and group differences in scan burden with Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests.

Results: Overall, 128 (88%) patients rated MRE as very or fairly acceptable, lower than US (144, 99%; p < 0.001), but greater than colonoscopy (60, 60%; p < 0.001). MRE recovery time was longer than US (p < 0.001), but shorter than colonoscopy (p < 0.001). Patients were less willing to undergo MRE again than US (127 vs. 133, 91% vs. 99%; p = 0.012), but more willing than for colonoscopy (68, 75%; p = 0.017). MRE generated greater burden than US (p < 0.001), although burden scores were low. Younger age and emotional distress were associated with greater MRE and US burden. Higher MRE discomfort was associated with patient preference for US (p = 0.053). Patients rated test accuracy as more important than scan discomfort.

Conclusions: MRE and US are well tolerated. Although MRE generates greater burden, longer recovery and is less preferred than US, it is more acceptable than colonoscopy. Patients, however, place greater emphasis on diagnostic accuracy than burden.

Key points: • MRE and US are rated as acceptable by most patients and superior to colonoscopy. • MRE generates significantly greater burden and longer recovery times than US, particularly in younger patients and those with high levels of emotional distress. • Most patients prefer the experience of undergoing US than MRE; however, patients rate test accuracy as more importance than scan burden.

Keywords: Crohn disease; Magnetic resonance imaging; Patient preference; Patient satisfaction; Ultrasound.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Professor Stuart Taylor.

Conflict of interest

Stuart Taylor is a research consultant to Robarts.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was obtained.

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

Some study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported in the main METRIC trial results paper.

Methodology

• prospective

• cross-sectional study

• multicentre study

Department of Health disclaimer

This report presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC or the HTA programme or the Department of Health.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart showing flow of participants in study
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Comparative scan experience: least acceptable part of MR enterography
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Comparative scan experience: least acceptable part of ultrasound
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Comparative scan experience: least acceptable part of colonoscopy
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Recovery time by scan type (cumulative %)
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Perceived importance of different scan attributes (mean scores on a scale of 1–5)

References

    1. Panes J, Bouhnik Y, Reinisch W, et al. Imaging techniques for assessment of inflammatory bowel disease: joint ECCO and ESGAR evidence-based consensus guidelines. J Crohns Colitis. 2013;7:556–585. doi: 10.1016/j.crohns.2013.02.020. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Desmond AN, O'Regan K, Curran C, et al. Crohn's disease: factors associated with exposure to high levels of diagnostic radiation. Gut. 2008;57:1524–1529. doi: 10.1136/gut.2008.151415. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dong J, Wang H, Zhao J, et al. Ultrasound as a diagnostic tool in detecting active Crohn's disease: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Eur Radiol. 2014;24:26–33. doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-2973-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Puylaert CA, Tielbeek JA, Bipat S, Stoker J. Grading of Crohn's disease activity using CT, MRI, US and scintigraphy: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:3295–3313. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3737-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zhu C, Ma X, Xue L, et al. Small intestine contrast ultrasonography for the detection and assessment of Crohn disease: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e4235. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004235. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources