↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Magnetic resonance enterography or video capsule endoscopy – what do Crohn’s disease patients prefer?

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Magnetic resonance enterography or video capsule endoscopy – what do Crohn’s disease patients prefer?
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, June 2016
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s99690
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adi Lahat, Uri Kopylov, Marianne M Amitai, Sandra Neuman, Nina Levhar, Doron Yablecovitch, Benjamin Avidan, Henit Yanai, Iris Dotan, Yehuda Chowers, Batya Weiss, Shomron Ben-Horin, Rami Eliakim

Abstract

Despite differences in the information obtained by capsule endoscopy (CE) and magnetic resonance enterography (MRE), one of these modalities is usually needed when evaluating disease activity. There are no data on patients' preference that would help guide the choice between these two modalities in these instances. To compare patients' tolerance and preference to MRE versus CE. Patients with known small bowel Crohn's disease (CD) in clinical remission (Crohn's disease activity index [CDAI] <150) or with mild symptoms (CDAI <220) were prospectively recruited. All patients underwent MRE followed by CE. Patients were asked to fill out a questionnaire addressing specific points regarding inconvenience during the preparation for the procedures, the procedures, and postprocedures. Side effects and procedure preference were addressed. Questionnaires were included for analysis only when more than 95% of the items were addressed. Fifty-six patients fulfilled inclusion criteria. Pre-exam discomfort, during-exam discomfort, nausea, vomiting, bloating, and abdominal pain were all significantly more prominent in MRE as compared to CE (P<0.0001, P<0.0001, P<0.0001, P=0.009, P=0.0002, P<0.0001, respectively). MRE was perceived as a more difficult procedure (P<0.0001). Furthermore, MRE was associated with a specific adverse event - claustrophobia. Seventy-eight percent of patients (44 patients) preferred to repeat CE as compared to 22% (P<0.0001) who preferred MRE. CE was better tolerated by CD patients compared to MRE and was preferred by 78% of patients. The superior tolerability of CE should be considered along with the diagnostic features, and more data sought when choosing between these two modalities for CD patients for long-term follow-up.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 14%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Professor 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 11 30%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 51%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 12 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 February 2019.
All research outputs
#8,267,700
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#588
of 1,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,232
of 354,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#18
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,733 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 354,190 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.