Appendix D Studies included in the review Study profiles of included systematic reviews Author/Year Objective of report Number and publication Population considered in Conclusions/recommendation Quality assessment dates included studies, Test comparison Wu et al (2013) To evaluate the overall 17 studies (n=725 patients) Mean age 8 to 77 years MRI has high sensitivity and specificity for HIGH QUALITY diagnostic accuracy of diagnosis of active CD in the small bowel and Patients in MR can be used Was the research question MRI is assessing the is a suitable modality for imaging and to evaluate active CD. specified? Yes Publications Search methods: activity of CD in the surveillance of active CD. from Jan 2001 to Sept 2011 Was the search strategy explicit small bowel. were selected from MEDLINE, and comprehensive? Yes Test: MR EMBASE and other electronic Were the eligibility criteria explicit Comparator: None databases. and appropriate? Yes Referent: Ileocolonoscopy and Was a quality assessment of histopathologic assessment. Studies were included if MRI included studies undertaken? was used to assess active CD Yes in the small bowel, 9/14 Were the methods of the QUADAS criteria were fulfilled appraisal reproducible? Yes for methodological quality, Were sources of heterogeneity sufficient raw data were explored? Yes reported, studies applied Was a summary of the main histopathologic and results clear and appropriate? ileocolonoscopy assessment Yes as referent standard, >10 patients. Meta-analysis pooled results: Sensitivity 0.87 (95%CI: 0.77, 0.93) I2 = 0.98 (strong evidence of significant heterogeneity) Specificity 0.91 (95%CI: 0.81, 0.96) Overall AUC(ROC) 0.95 (95%CI: 0.93, 0.97) Authors conclusions: Results showed MRI had good diagnostic accuracy and good clinical utility Using meta-regression analyses, magnet strength and experience of the radiologist were the most important variables influencing sensitivity. Common weaknesses in the included studies were whether interpretation of pathology was blinded from MRI. Funnel plot asymmetry tests showed no major publication bias.
Appendix D Studies included in the review Study profiles of included systematic reviews Author/Year Objective of report Number and publication dates Population considered in included studies, Test comparison Conclusions/recommendation Quality assessment Wu et al (2013) To evaluate the overall diagnostic accuracy of MRI is assessing the activity of CD in the small bowel. 17 studies (n=725 patients) Search methods: Publications from Jan 2001 to Sept 2011 were selected from MEDLINE, EMBASE and other electronic databases. Studies were included if MRI was used to assess active CD in the small bowel, 9/14 QUADAS criteria were fulfilled for methodological quality, sufficient raw data were reported, studies applied histopathologic and ileocolonoscopy assessment as referent standard, >10 patients. Mean age 8 to 77 years Patients in MR can be used to evaluate active CD. Test: MR Comparator: None Referent: Ileocolonoscopy and histopathologic assessment. MRI has high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of active CD in the small bowel and is a suitable modality for imaging and surveillance of active CD. HIGH QUALITY Was the research question specified? Yes Was the search strategy explicit and comprehensive? Yes Were the eligibility criteria explicit and appropriate? Yes Was a quality assessment of included studies undertaken? Yes Were the methods of the appraisal reproducible? Yes Were sources of heterogeneity explored? Yes Was a summary of the main results clear and appropriate? Yes Meta-analysis pooled results: Sensitivity 0.87 (95%CI: 0.77, 0.93) I2 = 0.98 (strong evidence of significant heterogeneity) Specificity 0.91 (95%CI: 0.81, 0.96) Overall AUC(ROC) 0.95 (95%CI: 0.93, 0.97) Authors conclusions: Results showed MRI had good diagnostic accuracy and good clinical utility Using meta-regression analyses, magnet strength and experience of the radiologist were the most important variables influencing sensitivity. Common weaknesses in the included studies were whether interpretation of pathology was blinded from MRI. Funnel plot asymmetry tests showed no major publication bias.
1190_MRICrohnsDisease_AttA_FinalCAreport_14Jan2014%20accessible.docx