4.8 Article

Gastrointestinal ultrasound in inflammatory bowel disease: an underused resource with potential paradigm-changing application

期刊

GUT
卷 67, 期 5, 页码 973-985

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-315655

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ferring Australia
  2. Takeda Pharmaceuticals Australia
  3. GESA/Ferring IBD Clinician Establishment Award
  4. AbbVie
  5. Janssen-Cilag
  6. Pfizer
  7. Ferring
  8. Danone
  9. Janssen
  10. A2 Milk Company
  11. Aspen
  12. Shire
  13. Falk Foundation
  14. MSD
  15. Takeda
  16. Biogen
  17. Janssen Pharmaceuticals
  18. GESA/Ferring IBD Clinican Establishment Award
  19. Napp Pharmaceuticals
  20. Mundipharma
  21. UCB
  22. Ferring Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evolution of treatment targets in IBD has increased the need for objective monitoring of disease activity to guide therapeutic strategy. Although mucosal healing is the current target of therapy in IBD, endoscopy is invasive, expensive and unappealing to patients. GI ultrasound (GIUS) represents a non-invasive modality to assess disease activity in IBD. It is accurate, cost-effective and reproducible. GIUS can be performed at the point of care without specific patient preparation so as to facilitate clinical decision-making. As compared with ileocolonoscopy and other imaging modalities (CT and MRI), GIUS is accurate in diagnosing IBD, detecting complications of disease including fistulae, strictures and abscesses, monitoring disease activity and detecting postoperative disease recurrence. International groups increasingly recognise GIUS as a valuable tool with paradigm-changing application in the management of IBD; however, uptake outside parts of continental Europe has been slow and GIUS is underused in many countries. The aim of this review is to present a pragmatic guide to the positioning of GIUS in IBD clinical practice, providing evidence for use, algorithms for integration into practice, training pathways and a strategic implementation framework.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据