Magnetic resonance enterography, small bowel ultrasound and colonoscopy to diagnose and stage Crohn's disease: patient acceptability and perceived burden.
Crohn disease
Magnetic resonance imaging
Patient preference
Patient satisfaction
Ultrasound
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2019
Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
11
05
2018
accepted:
12
07
2018
revised:
02
07
2018
pubmed:
22
8
2018
medline:
4
4
2019
entrez:
22
8
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare patient acceptability and burden of magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and ultrasound (US) to each other, and to other enteric investigations, particularly colonoscopy. 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. 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. 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. • 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30128615
doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5661-2
pii: 10.1007/s00330-018-5661-2
pmc: PMC6510862
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1083-1093Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 11/23/01
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : PDF-2017-10-081
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Health Technology Assessment Programme
ID : 11/23/01
Investigateurs
Susan Mallett
(S)
Rachel Baldwin-Cleland
(R)
Stuart Bloom
(S)
John Hamlin
(J)
Ailsa Hart
(A)
Antony Higginson
(A)
Ilan Jacobs
(I)
Sara McCartney
(S)
Steve Morris
(S)
Charles Murray
(C)
Andrew Plumb
(A)
Richard Pollok
(R)
Shonit Punwani
(S)
Laura Quinn
(L)
Manuel Rodriguez-Justo
(M)
Andrew Salter
(A)
Simon Travis
(S)
Alastair Windsor
(A)
Peter Wylie
(P)
Jade Dyer
(J)
Pranitha Veeramalla
(P)
Steve Hibbert
(S)
Richard Ellis
(R)
Fergus Thursby-Pelham
(F)
Richard Beable
(R)
Nicola Gibbons
(N)
Claire Ward
(C)
Anthony O'Connor
(A)
Hannah Lambie
(H)
Rachel Hyland
(R)
Nigel Scott
(N)
Roger Lapham
(R)
Doris Quartey
(D)
Deborah Scimshaw
(D)
Helen Bungay
(H)
Maggie Betts
(M)
Simona Fourie
(S)
Niall Power
(N)
Rajapandian Ilangovan
(R)
Uday Patel
(U)
Evgenia Mainta
(E)
Phillip Lung
(P)
Ian Johnston
(I)
Mani Naghibi
(M)
Morgan Moorghen
(M)
Adriana Martinez
(A)
Francois Porte
(F)
Christopher Alexakis
(C)
James Pilcher
(J)
Anisur Rahman
(A)
Jonny Vlahos
(J)
Rebecca Greenhalgh
(R)
Anita Wale
(A)
Teresita Beeston
(T)
Wivijin Piga
(W)
Joey Clemente
(J)
Farooq Rahman
(F)
Simona de Caro
(S)
Shameer Metha
(S)
Rosa Vega
(R)
Roman Jastrub
(R)
Harbir Sidhu
(H)
Hameed Rafiee
(H)
Mairead Tennent
(M)
Caron Innes
(C)
Craig Mowat
(C)
Gillian Duncan
(G)
Références
Dig Dis Sci. 2000 Jan;45(1):26-31
pubmed: 10695609
Radiology. 2004 Nov;233(2):328-37
pubmed: 15358854
Gut. 2008 Nov;57(11):1524-9
pubmed: 18443021
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008 Aug;17(8):1872-9
pubmed: 18708374
Health Expect. 2009 Mar;12(1):18-26
pubmed: 19250149
Eur Radiol. 2010 Jan;20(1):146-56
pubmed: 19626326
Br J Radiol. 2011 Jun;84(1002):508-17
pubmed: 21081570
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011 Jul;34(2):125-45
pubmed: 21615440
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Feb 15;12:13
pubmed: 22335801
Psychooncology. 2012 Jan;21(1):1-10
pubmed: 22905349
J Crohns Colitis. 2013 Aug;7(7):556-85
pubmed: 23583097
Eur Radiol. 2014 Jan;24(1):26-33
pubmed: 23921767
BMC Gastroenterol. 2014 Aug 11;14:142
pubmed: 25110044
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2015 Jun;59(3):300-5
pubmed: 25900704
Eur Radiol. 2015 Nov;25(11):3295-313
pubmed: 26080794
Br J Radiol. 2015 Aug;88(1052):20150121
pubmed: 26090825
Eur Radiol. 2016 Mar;26(3):807-15
pubmed: 26105022
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Mar;15(3):376-384.e5
pubmed: 27189912
J Med Screen. 2017 Mar;24(1):12-19
pubmed: 27216771
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Aug;95(31):e4235
pubmed: 27495028
Eur Radiol. 2017 Aug;27(8):3353-3361
pubmed: 28083696
Eur Radiol. 2017 Oct;27(10):4372-4378
pubmed: 28357495
BMJ Open. 2017 Sep 6;7(9):e016391
pubmed: 28882915
Br J Radiol. 2018 Jun;91(1086):20170731
pubmed: 29528257
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Aug;3(8):548-558
pubmed: 29914843
Endoscopy. 1994 May;26(4):342-6
pubmed: 8076565