MR-Eye:High-Resolution Microscopy Coil MRI for the Assessment of the Orbit and Periorbital Structures, Part 2: Clinical Applications

In the first part of this 2-part series, we described how to implement microscopy coil MR imaging of the orbits. Beyond being a useful anatomic educational tool, microscopy coil MR imaging has valuable applications in clinical practice. By depicting deep tissue tumor extension, which cannot be evaluated clinically, ophthalmic surgeons can minimize the surgical field, preserve normal anatomy when possible, and maximize the accuracy of resection margins. Here we demonstrate common and uncommon pathologies that may be encountered in orbital microscopy coil MR imaging practice and discuss the imaging appearance, the underlying pathologic processes, and the clinical relevance of the microscopy coil MR imaging findings.</p

Data approximation strategies between generalized line scales and the influence of labels and spacing

Comparing sensory data gathered using different line scales is challenging. We tested whether adding internal labels to a generalized visual analog scale (gVAS) would improve comparability to a typical generalized labeled magnitude scale (gLMS). Untrained participants evaluated cheeses using one of four randomly assigned scales. Normalization to a cross‐modal standard and/or two gLMS transformations were applied to the data. Response means and distributions were lower for the gLMS than the gVAS, but no difference in resolving power was detected. The presence of labels, with or without line markings, caused categorical‐like lumping of responses. Closer low‐end label spacing for gLMS increased influenced participants to mark near higher intensity labels when they were evaluating low‐intensity samples. Although normalization reduced differences between scales, neither transformation nor normalization was supported as appropriate gLMS/gVAS approximation strategies. This study supports previous observations that neither scale offers a systematic advantage and that participant usage differences limit direct scale comparisons

Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance enterography and small bowel ultrasound for the extent and activity of newly diagnosed and relapsed Crohn's disease (METRIC): a multicentre trial

Magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and ultrasound are used to image Crohn's disease, but their comparative accuracy for assessing disease extent and activity is not known with certainty. Therefore, we did a multicentre trial to address this issue. We recruited patients from eight UK hospitals. Eligible patients were 16 years or older, with newly diagnosed Crohn's disease or with established disease and suspected relapse. Consecutive patients had MRE and ultrasound in addition to standard investigations. Discrepancy between MRE and ultrasound for the presence of small bowel disease triggered an additional investigation, if not already available. The primary outcome was difference in per-patient sensitivity for small bowel disease extent (correct identification and segmental localisation) against a construct reference standard (panel diagnosis). This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN03982913, and has been completed. 284 patients completed the trial (133 in the newly diagnosed group, 151 in the relapse group). Based on the reference standard, 233 (82%) patients had small bowel Crohn's disease. The sensitivity of MRE for small bowel disease extent (80% [95% CI 72-86]) and presence (97% [91-99]) were significantly greater than that of ultrasound (70% [62-78] for disease extent, 92% [84-96] for disease presence); a 10% (95% CI 1-18; p=0·027) difference for extent, and 5% (1-9; p=0·025) difference for presence. The specificity of MRE for small bowel disease extent (95% [85-98]) was significantly greater than that of ultrasound (81% [64-91]); a difference of 14% (1-27; p=0·039). The specificity for small bowel disease presence was 96% (95% CI 86-99) with MRE and 84% (65-94) with ultrasound (difference 12% [0-25]; p=0·054). There were no serious adverse events. Both MRE and ultrasound have high sensitivity for detecting small bowel disease presence and both are valid first-line investigations, and viable alternatives to ileocolonoscopy. However, in a national health service setting, MRE is generally the preferred radiological investigation when available because its sensitivity and specificity exceed ultrasound significantly. National Institute of Health and Research Health Technology Assessment. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Diagnostic accuracy for the extent and activity of newly diagnosed and relapsed Crohn’s disease: a multicentre prospective comparison of magnetic resonance enterography and small bowel ultrasound –The METRIC Trial

Background Magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and ultrasound (US) are used to image Crohn’s disease, but comparative accuracy for disease extent and activity is not known with certainty. We undertook a prospective multicentre cohort trial to address this Methods We recruited from 8 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were 16 years or older, newly diagnosed with Crohn’s disease, or had established disease with suspected relapse. Consecutive patients underwent MRE and US in addition to standard investigations. Discrepancy between MRE and US for small bowel (SB) disease presence triggered an additional investigation, if not already available. The primary outcome was difference in per patient sensitivity for SB disease extent (correct identification and segmental localisation) against a construct reference standard (panel diagnosis). Accuracy for SB and colonic disease presence and activity were secondary outcomes. The trial is completed (ISRCTN03982913). Findings 284 patients completed the trial (133 new diagnosis, 151 relapse). MRE sensitivity (n=233) for SB disease extent (80% [95%CI 72 to 86]) and presence (97% [91 to 99]) were significantly greater than US (70% [62 to 78], 92% [84 to 96]); a 10% (1 to 18; p=0.027), and 5% (1 to 9), difference respectively. MRE specificity for SB disease extent (95% [85 to 98]) was significantly greater than US (81% [64 to 91]). Sensitivity for active SB disease was significantly greater for MRE than US (96% [92 to 99] vs. 90% [82 to 95]), difference 6% (2 to 11). Overall, there were no significant accuracy differences for colonic disease presence. Accuracy in newly diagnosed and relapse patients was similar, although US had significantly greater sensitivity for colonic disease than MRE in newly diagnosed patients (67% [49 to 81) vs. 47% [31 to 64]), difference 20% (1 to 39). There were no serious adverse events. Interpretation MRE has higher diagnostic accuracy for the extent and activity of SB Crohn’s disease than US when tested in a prospective multi centre cohort trial setting

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

Magnetic resonance enterography, small bowel ultrasound and colonoscopy to diagnose and stage Crohn’s disease; patient acceptability, and perceived burden

Objectives: To compare patient acceptability and burden of magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and ultrasound (US) to each other, and to other enteric investigations, particularly colonoscopy. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions.: 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

Many Labs 5:Testing pre-data collection peer review as an intervention to increase replicability

Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect (p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3?9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276?3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (?r = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies (r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00?.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19?.50)