Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 336

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Consensus Recommendations for Evaluation, Interpretation, and Utilization of Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Enterography in Patients With Small Bowel Crohn’s Disease

Bruining, David H., Zimmermann, Ellen M., Loftus, Edward V., Sandborn, William J., Sauer, Cary G., Strong, Scott A., Society of Abdominal Radiology Crohn’s Disease-Focused Panel·2018·Radiology

Abstract

Computed tomography and magnetic resonance enterography have become routine small bowel imaging tests to evaluate patients with established or suspected Crohn’s disease, but the interpretation and use of these imaging modalities can vary widely. A shared understanding of imaging findings, nomenclature, and utilization will improve the utility of these imaging techniques to guide treatment options, as well as assess for treatment response and complications. Representatives from the Society of Abdominal Radiology Crohn’s Disease-Focused Panel, the Society of Pediatric Radiology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and other experts, systematically evaluated evidence for imaging findings associated with small bowel Crohn’s disease enteric inflammation and established recommendations for the evaluation, interpretation, and use of computed tomography and magnetic resonance enterography in small bowel Crohn’s disease. This work makes recommendations for imaging findings that indicate small bowel Crohn’s disease, how inflammatory small bowel Crohn’s disease and its complications should be described, elucidates potential extra-enteric findings that may be seen at imaging, and recommends that cross-sectional enterography should be performed at diagnosis of Crohn’s disease and considered for small bowel Crohn’s disease monitoring paradigms. A useful morphologic construct describing how imaging findings evolve with disease progression and response is described, and standard impressions for radiologic reports that convey meaningful information to gastroenterologists and surgeons are presented. ©2018, RSNA, AGA Institute, and Society of Abdominal Radiology This article is being published jointly in Radiology and Gastroenterology.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1148/radiol.2018171737

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 59 references

Metadata

Authors
Bruining, D. H., Zimmermann, E. M., Loftus, E. V., Sandborn, W. J., Sauer, C. G., Strong, S. A., & Society of Abdominal Radiology Crohn’s Disease-Focused Panel
Venue
Radiology
Published
2018-03
Volume
286
Issue
3
Pages
776-799
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2783961797
Cited by
336
References
59
FWCI
18.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Consensus Recommendations for Evaluation, Interpretation, and Utilization of Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Enterography in Patients With Small Bowel Crohn’s Disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2018171737
The paper
Bruining, D. H., Zimmermann, E. M., Loftus, E. V., Sandborn, W. J., Sauer, C. G., Strong, S. A., & Society of Abdominal Radiology Crohn’s Disease-Focused Panel. (2018). Consensus Recommendations for Evaluation, Interpretation, and Utilization of Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Enterography in Patients With Small Bowel Crohn’s Disease. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018171737

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.