Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorIlvermarl, Johan FKF
dc.contributor.authorHansen, Tawnya
dc.contributor.authorGoodsall, Thomas M.
dc.contributor.authorSeidelin, Jakob B.
dc.contributor.authorAl-Farhan, Heba
dc.contributor.authorAllocca, Mariangela
dc.contributor.authorBegun, Jakob
dc.contributor.authorBryant, Robert V.
dc.contributor.authorCarter, Dan
dc.contributor.authorChristensen, Britt
dc.contributor.authorDubinsky, Marla C.
dc.contributor.authorGecse, Krisztina B.
dc.contributor.authorKucharzik, Torsten
dc.contributor.authorLu, Cathy
dc.contributor.authorMaaser, Christian
dc.contributor.authorMaconi, Giovanni
dc.contributor.authorNylund, Kim
dc.contributor.authorPalmela, Carolina
dc.contributor.authorWilson, Stephanie
dc.contributor.authorWilkens, Rune
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-25T13:37:52Z
dc.date.available2022-02-25T13:37:52Z
dc.date.created2021-12-16T12:03:04Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.issn1873-9946
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/2981509
dc.description.abstractBackground and Aims No consensus exists on defining intestinal ultrasound response, transmural healing, or transmural remission in inflammatory bowel disease, nor clear guidance for optimal timing of assessment during treatment. This systematic review and expert consensus study aimed to define such recommendations, along with key parameters included in response reporting. Methods Electronic databases were searched from inception to July 26, 2021, using pre-defined terms. Studies were eligible if at least two intestinal ultrasound [IUS] assessments at different time points during treatment were reported, along with an appropriate reference standard. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to examine study-level risk of bias. An international panel of experts [n = 18] rated an initial 196 statements [RAND/UCLA process, scale 1–9]. Two videoconferences were conducted, resulting in additional ratings of 149 and 13 statements, respectively. Results Out of 5826 records, 31 full-text articles, 16 abstracts, and one research letter were included; 83% [40/48] of included studies showed a low concern of applicability, and 96% [46/48] had a high risk of bias. A consensus was reached on 41 statements, with clear definitions of IUS treatment response, transmural healing, transmural remission, timing of assessment, and general considerations when using intestinal ultrasound in inflammatory bowel disease. Conclusions Response criteria and time points of response assessment varied between studies, complicating direct comparison of parameter changes and their relation to treatment outcomes. To ensure a unified approach in routine care and clinical trials, we provide recommendations and definitions for key parameters for intestinal ultrasound response, to incorporate into future prospective studies.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherOxford University Pressen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse-Ikkekommersiell 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleDefining Transabdominal Intestinal Ultrasound Treatment Response and Remission in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Systematic Review and Expert Consensus Statementen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright The Author(s) 2021en_US
dc.source.articlenumberjjab173en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode2
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab173
dc.identifier.cristin1969386
dc.source.journalJournal of Crohn's and Colitisen_US
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Crohn's and Colitis. 2021, jjab173.en_US


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse-Ikkekommersiell 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse-Ikkekommersiell 4.0 Internasjonal