Stoker, Jaap

Abstract Background and Aims Intestinal ultrasound (IUS) is increasingly used to monitor treatment efficacy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) trials. However, standardized definitions for response, remission, and optimal assessment timing remain undefined. An international expert consensus meeting was held to establish IUS endpoints for clinical trials. Methods A panel of 35 international gastroenterologists and radiologists participated in a modified Delphi process, reviewing the literature and developing consensus statements. Agreement was defined as at least 75% consensus. Results Consensus was reached on 150 statements across four domains: general IBD (30 statements), luminal Crohn’s disease (CD) (43), perianal CD (51), and ulcerative colitis (UC) (26). For luminal CD and UC, ultrasound response was defined by: (1) a ≥25% reduction in bowel wall thickness (BWT) from baseline, or (2) multifactorial improvement, combining BWT reduction with ≥1 grade decrease in color Doppler signal (CDS) or another IUS parameter. Assessments were set at weeks 4-8 for the colon and week 12 for the terminal ileum. Ultrasound remission in luminal CD was defined as: (1) BWT normalization (≤3 mm) or (2) normalization of multiple parameters, including BWT, CDS, and all other IUS parameters. Similar remission criteria were proposed for UC, but the sigmoid BWT normal range (3-4 mm) remained uncertain. The bowel ultrasound score (BUSS) for CD and the Milan ultrasound criteria (MUC) for UC were supported as standardized scoring systems for trials. Conclusion This consensus provides standardized IUS definitions to enhance consistency in IBD trials, supporting the integration of IUS in future research.

BackgroundPreferential publication of studies with positive findings can lead to overestimation of diagnostic test accuracy (i.e. publication bias). Understanding the contribution of the editorial process to publication bias could inform interventions to optimize the evidence guiding clinical decisions.Purpose/HypothesisTo evaluate whether accuracy estimates, abstract conclusion positivity, and completeness of abstract reporting are associated with acceptance to radiology conferences and journals.Study TypeMeta‐research.PopulationAbstracts submitted to radiology conferences (European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) and International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM)) from 2008 to 2018 and manuscripts submitted to radiology journals (Radiology, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging [JMRI]) from 2017 to 2018. Primary clinical studies evaluating sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic imaging test in humans with available editorial decisions were included.AssessmentPrimary variables (Youden's index [YI > 0.8 vs. <0.8], abstract conclusion positivity [positive vs. neutral/negative], number of reported items on the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies [STARD] for Abstract guideline) and confounding variables (prospective vs. retrospective/unreported, sample size, study duration, interobserver agreement assessment, subspecialty, modality) were extracted.Statistical TestsMultivariable logistic regression to obtain adjusted odds ratio (OR) as a measure of the association between the primary variables and acceptance by radiology conferences and journals; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P‐values were obtained; the threshold for statistical significance was P < 0.05.ResultsA total of 1000 conference abstracts (500 ESGAR and 500 ISMRM) and 1000 journal manuscripts (505 Radiology and 495 JMRI) were included. Conference abstract acceptance was not significantly associated with YI (adjusted OR = 0.97 for YI > 0.8; CI = 0.70–1.35), conclusion positivity (OR = 1.21 for positive conclusions; CI = 0.75–1.90) or STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 0.96 per unit increase in reported items; CI = 0.82–1.18). Manuscripts with positive abstract conclusions were less likely to be accepted by radiology journals (OR = 0.45; CI = 0.24–0.86), while YI (OR = 0.85; CI = 0.56–1.29) and STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 1.06; CI = 0.87–1.30) showed no significant association. Positive conclusions were present in 86.7% of submitted conference abstracts and 90.2% of journal manuscripts.Data ConclusionDiagnostic test accuracy studies with positive findings were not preferentially accepted by the evaluated radiology conferences or journals.Evidence Level3Technical EfficacyStage 2.