These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of MRI Activity Scoring Systems and Features for the Terminal Ileum in Patients With Crohn Disease.
    Author: Puylaert CAJ, Nolthenius CJT, Tielbeek JAW, Makanyanga JC, Rodriguez-Justo M, Brosens LAA, Nio CY, Pendsé DA, Ponsioen CY, Vos FM, Taylor SA, Stoker J.
    Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2019 Feb; 212(2):W25-W31. PubMed ID: 30540212.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate four previously validated MRI activity scoring systems for diagnosis and grading of Crohn disease (CD) in the terminal ileum against an endoscopic and histopathologic reference standard. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Ethics approval and written informed consent were obtained. Subjects with known or suspected CD were prospectively recruited between December 2011 and August 2014. Each patient underwent MRI and ileocolonoscopy with terminal ileum biopsies. Four MRI scoring systems (Magnetic Resonance Index of Activity [MaRIA], Clermont score, London score, and Crohn disease MRI Index) and component features were applied by two observers and correlated to the Crohn disease endoscopic index of severity (CDEIS, 0-44) and histopathologic endoscopic acute inflammation score (0-6). Interobserver agreement (weighted kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) and diagnostic accuracy for active and ulcerating endoscopic or histopathologic disease were evaluated. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients (median age, 32 years old; 55 women, 43 men) were included. All four scoring systems showed good interobserver agreement (ICC = 0.70-0.78), moderate-to-strong correlation to CDEIS (r = 0.57-0.67) and weak-to-moderate correlation to endoscopic acute inflammation score (r = 0.38-0.49). Scoring systems' diagnostic accuracy for active and ulcerating endoscopic disease ranged from 73% to 78% and 71% to 76%, respectively, whereas for active histopathologic disease accuracy ranged from 65% to 72%. Between the scoring systems, no significant differences were found for both observers regarding interobserver agreement, correlation coefficients, and diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSION: All scoring systems were comparable in terms of interobserver agreement, correlation to the endoscopic and histopathologic reference standard, and diagnostic accuracy. The London score, MaRIA, and Clermont score have the additional benefit of having validated cutoff values for both active and ulcerating endoscopic disease.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]