P190 Systematic review: Gastrointestinal ultrasound scoring indices for inflammatory bowel disease
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background The management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) requires frequent monitoring and assessment of disease activity. Endoscopic assessment with biopsy remains the gold standard for disease activity. Gastrointestinal ultrasound (GIUS) is a non-invasive, accessible and affordable test used to assess and monitor IBD and has been shown to be similar to MRI for detecting disease. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature to identify scoring indices used for GIUS measurement of disease activity in IBD and to appraise their operating characteristics. Methods A systematic search of Embase, Medline, Pubmed, Cochrane Central and Clinical Trials.gov from inception to July 2019 was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Included were all study types reporting GIUS indices used for grading activity of severity of IBD in comparison to an objective reference standard. Studies using an exclusive clinical reference standard were excluded. All study types and abstracts were considered. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS tool. Results 27 eligible studies were identified investigating 1647 patients. Disease phenotype was Crohn’s disease (CD) (n = 13), ulcerative colitis (UC) (n = 10) and IBD (n = 4). The most common reference standard was colonoscopy (n = 23), histology (n = 2), and imaging (n = 2). Bowel wall thickness was an index parameter in 26 studies. The most frequent cut off was 3mm (n = 10), 4mm (n = 9), 5mm (n = 1), and not specified (n = 6). There was no noticeable difference in magnitude of cut off when stratified by disease phenotype. Colour Doppler was an index parameter in 16 studies and was based on the Limburg score (n = 7), binary (n = 7) or categorical (n = 2). Bowel wall stratification was an index parameter in 15 studies and was more frequently used in UC (70%) and IBD (75%) indices than in CD indices (38%). Other index parameters included bowel wall compressibility, presence of complications such as abscess or fistula, bowel wall echogenicity, mesenteric inflammatory, lymphadenopathy, contrast enhancement, ulceration, peristalsis, strictures, absence of haustra coli, and tissue sonoelastography. Twenty-three studies were identified as at risk of bias. Overall concordance was substantial to excellent and accuracy was good to excellent. Two studies demonstrated substantial inter-observer agreement. No studies reported intra-observer agreement. Conclusion The identified GIUS scoring indices demonstrate applicability to both CD and UC with good accuracy and concordance. Current evidence does not adequately address concerns about the intra- and inter-observer variability of GIUS. There is a need for robust validation of an evidence-based GIUS index before more widespread use in IBD as a surrogate for colonoscopy and in clinical trials.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,059 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,009 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,014 | 0,015 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».