Magnetic resonance enterography compared with ultrasonography in newly diagnosed and relapsing Crohn's disease patients: the METRIC diagnostic accuracy study

Magnetic resonance enterography and enteric ultrasonography are used to image Crohn's disease patients. Their diagnostic accuracy for presence, extent and activity of enteric Crohn's disease was compared. To compare diagnostic accuracy, observer variability, acceptability, diagnostic impact and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance enterography and ultrasonography in newly diagnosed or relapsing Crohn's disease. Prospective multicentre cohort study. Eight NHS hospitals. Consecutive participants aged ≥ 16 years, newly diagnosed with Crohn's disease or with established Crohn's disease and suspected relapse. Magnetic resonance enterography and ultrasonography. The primary outcome was per-participant sensitivity difference between magnetic resonance enterography and ultrasonography for small bowel Crohn's disease extent. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity and specificity for small bowel Crohn's disease and colonic Crohn's disease extent, and sensitivity and specificity for small bowel Crohn's disease and colonic Crohn's disease presence; identification of active disease; interobserver variation; participant acceptability; diagnostic impact; and cost-effectiveness. Out of the 518 participants assessed, 335 entered the trial, with 51 excluded, giving a final cohort of 284 (133 and 151 in new diagnosis and suspected relapse cohorts, respectively). Across the whole cohort, for small bowel Crohn's disease extent, magnetic resonance enterography sensitivity [80%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 72% to 86%] was significantly greater than ultrasonography sensitivity (70%, 95% CI 62% to 78%), with a 10% difference (95% CI 1% to 18%;  = 0.027). For small bowel Crohn's disease extent, magnetic resonance enterography specificity (95%, 95% CI 85% to 98%) was significantly greater than ultrasonography specificity (81%, 95% CI 64% to 91%), with a 14% difference (95% CI 1% to 27%). For small bowel Crohn's disease presence, magnetic resonance enterography sensitivity (97%, 95% CI 91% to 99%) was significantly greater than ultrasonography sensitivity (92%, 95% CI 84% to 96%), with a 5% difference (95% CI 1% to 9%). For small bowel Crohn's disease presence, magnetic resonance enterography specificity was 96% (95% CI 86% to 99%) and ultrasonography specificity was 84% (95% CI 65% to 94%), with a 12% difference (95% CI 0% to 25%). Test sensitivities for small bowel Crohn's disease presence and extent were similar in the two cohorts. For colonic Crohn's disease presence in newly diagnosed participants, ultrasonography sensitivity (67%, 95% CI 49% to 81%) was significantly greater than magnetic resonance enterography sensitivity (47%, 95% CI 31% to 64%), with a 20% difference (95% CI 1% to 39%). For active small bowel Crohn's disease, magnetic resonance enterography sensitivity (96%, 95% CI 92% to 99%) was significantly greater than ultrasonography sensitivity (90%, 95% CI 82% to 95%), with a 6% difference (95% CI 2% to 11%). There was some disagreement between readers for both tests. A total of 88% of participants rated magnetic resonance enterography as very or fairly acceptable, which is significantly lower than the percentage (99%) of participants who did so for ultrasonography. Therapeutic decisions based on magnetic resonance enterography alone and ultrasonography alone agreed with the final decision in 122 out of 158 (77%) cases and 124 out of 158 (78%) cases, respectively. There were no differences in costs or quality-adjusted life-years between tests. Magnetic resonance enterography and ultrasonography scans were interpreted by practitioners blinded to clinical data (but not participant cohort), which does not reflect use in clinical practice. Magnetic resonance enterography has higher accuracy for detecting the presence, extent and activity of small bowel Crohn's disease than ultrasonography does. Both tests have variable interobserver agreement and are broadly acceptable to participants, although ultrasonography produces less participant burden. Diagnostic impact and cost-effectiveness are similar. Recommendations for future work include investigation of the comparative utility of magnetic resonance enterography and ultrasonography for treatment response assessment and investigation of non-specific abdominal symptoms to confirm or refute Crohn's disease. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03982913. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 23, No. 42. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries