European Radiology

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 92–93 | Cite as

Reply to: enteroclysis vs enterography: the unsettled issue

  • Gabriele Masselli
  • Emanuele Casciani
  • Elisabetta Polettini
  • Gianfranco Gualdi

Dear Drs Torkzad and Lauenstein,

Thank you for your interest in our article, “Comparison of MR enteroclysis with MR enterography and conventional enteroclysis in patients with Crohn’s disease”, published in European Radiology [1].

We would like to respond briefly to some of your questions and comments.

Statistical analysis:

We have not compared MR enteroclysis (MREc) and MR enterography (MREg) directly, but MREc and MREg findings were compared directly with those of conventional enteroclysis (CE) as the ‘gold standard’. The results of this analysis were correlated.

The two groups of patients that underwent to MREc and CE (n = 22) and MREg and CE (n = 18) were not statistically different, because the procedure for alternate assignment involved random basing of the CDAI score.

The two populations were homogeneous, and the analysis of the results was not on a patient basis but on a segment basis. We agree with you that a larger number of patients would be useful in evaluating the grade of...


Small Bowel Metoclopramide Capsule Endoscopy Mucosal Abnormality Push Enteroscopy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Masselli G, Casciani E, Polettini E, Gualdi G (2008) Comparison of MR enteroclysis with MR enterography and conventional enteroclysis in patients with Crohn’s disease. Eur Radiol 18:438–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Torkzad MR, Vargas R, Tanaka C, Blomqvist L (2007) Value of cine MRI for better visualization of the proximal small bowel in normal individuals. Eur Radiol 17:2964–2968PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gourtsoyiannis N, Papanikolaou N, Grammatikakis J, Prassopoulos P (2002) MR enteroclysis: technical considerations and clinical applications. Eur Radiol 11:2651–2658Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fork FT, Aabakken L (2007) Capsule enteroscopy and radiology of the small intestine. Eur Radiol 17(12):3103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Albert JG, Martiny F, Krummenerl A, Stock K, Lebke J, Gobel CM, Lotterer E, Nietsch HH, Behrmann C, Fleig WE (2005) Diagnosis of small bowel Crohn’s disease: a prospective comparison of capsule endoscopy with magnetic resonance imaging and fluoroscopic enteroclysis. Gut 54:1721–1727PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriele Masselli
    • 1
  • Emanuele Casciani
    • 1
  • Elisabetta Polettini
    • 1
  • Gianfranco Gualdi
    • 1
  1. 1.Radiology DEA Department, Academic Hospital “Umberto I”La Sapienza University RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations