Abdominal Imaging

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 34–37 | Cite as

Magnetic resonance enteroclysis compared with conventional enteroclysis and computed tomography enteroclysis: a critically appraised topic

  • E. Ronan RyanEmail author
  • Ingrid S. E. Heaslip


Recent advances in CT and MR technology, particularly the advent of multidetector CT (MDCT), the advent of rapidly changing gradients in industry standard MRI scanners, enabling ultrafast sequences, have led to an expansion in the role of cross sectional imaging in the investigation of small bowel disorders. We conducted an evidence-based review of MR enteroclysis (MRE) and how it performs in comparison to CT enteroclysis (CTE) and the gold standard of conventional enteroclysis (CE) for diagnosis of small bowel Crohn’s disease and small bowel neoplasia. We used the standard 5 step evidence-based medicine method of ask, search, appraise, apply and evaluate. We found 3 relevant level 1B studies, and one level 3B study. No studies evaluating MRE in small bowel neoplasia were found. MRE does not perform as well as CE in evaluation of fine mucosal detail, but the additional extraluminal detail, and absence of ionising radiation enhances its overall performance. It was not possible to establish the relative diagnostic performances of MRE and CTE from existing literature. CTE does involve patient irradiation. For patients in whom jejunal intubation and enteroclysis is considered to evaluate the small bowel, MRE should be considered the first-line investigation, local resources and expertise permitting.


Evidence-based medicine/*methods/standards *Radiology Crohn disease/*diagnosis Intestine, small/pathology/*radiography Magnetic resonance imaging/*methods Tomography, X-ray computed 



The authors acknowledge the extensive advice and assistance of Dr Dermot Malone, in the writing of the manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Staunton M (2007) Evidence-based radiology: steps 1 and 2—asking answerable questions and searching for evidence. Radiology 242(1):23–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haynes RB (2001) Of studies, summaries, synopses, and systems: the “4S” evolution of services for finding current best evidence. Evid Based Ment Health 4(2):37–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Entrez PubMed. Date Accessed May 5th 2007
  4. 4.
    Levels of evidence Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Date Accessed May 5th 2007
  5. 5.
    Dodd JD (2007) Evidence-based practice in radiology: steps 3 and 4–appraise and apply diagnostic radiology literature. Radiology 242(2):342–354PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dodd JD, MacEneaney PM, Malone DE (2004) Evidence-based radiology: how to quickly assess the validity and strength of publications in the diagnostic radiology literature. Eur Radiol 14(5):915–922PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gourtsoyiannis NC, Grammatikakis J, Papamastorakis G et al (2006) Imaging of small intestinal Crohn’s disease: comparison between MR enteroclysis and conventional enteroclysis. Eur Radiol 16(9):1915–1925PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Masselli G, Brizi MG, Menchini L et al (2005) Magnetic Resonance Enteroclysis imaging of Crohn’s. Radiol Med 110(3):221–233PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Darbari A, Sena L, Argani P et al (2004) Gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: a useful radiological tool in diagnosing pediatric IBD. Inflamm Bowel Dis 10(2):67–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schmidt S, Lepori D, Meuwly JY et al (2003) Prospective comparison of MR enteroclysis with multidetector spiral-CT enteroclysis: interobserver agreement and sensitivity by means of “sign-by-sign” correlation. Eur Radiol 13(6):1303–1311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cancer in Ireland 1994–2001 Incidence, mortality and treatment, National Cancer Registry of Ireland 2005Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologySt Vincent’s University HospitalDublin 4Ireland

Personalised recommendations