Does contrast-enhanced computed tomography raise awareness in the diagnosis of the invisible side of celiac disease in adults?

Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the diagnosis and determine major and minor criteria of celiac disease (CD) with the malabsorption patterns (MABP) in the small intestine and colon on computed tomography (CT) and additional CT findings. Methods This retrospective study was conducted with 116 pat...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Abdominal imaging 2022-05, Vol.47 (5), p.1750-1761
Hauptverfasser: Göya, Cemil, Dündar, İlyas, Özgökçe, Mesut, Türko, Ensar, Özkaçmaz, Sercan, Durmaz, Fatma, Aydın, Mesut, Alabalık, Ulaş, Geylani, Yusuf, Arslan, Mehmet, Hattapoğlu, Salih
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1761
container_issue 5
container_start_page 1750
container_title Abdominal imaging
container_volume 47
creator Göya, Cemil
Dündar, İlyas
Özgökçe, Mesut
Türko, Ensar
Özkaçmaz, Sercan
Durmaz, Fatma
Aydın, Mesut
Alabalık, Ulaş
Geylani, Yusuf
Arslan, Mehmet
Hattapoğlu, Salih
description Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the diagnosis and determine major and minor criteria of celiac disease (CD) with the malabsorption patterns (MABP) in the small intestine and colon on computed tomography (CT) and additional CT findings. Methods This retrospective study was conducted with 116 patients diagnosed with CD, 14 CD patients recovering with treatment, and 35 control patients with non-CD. All patients had CT examinations and histopathological diagnoses. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy values of each CT finding defined in the literature were statistically evaluated. According to the patient and control groups, the numerical values of the findings and the sensitivity and specificity values were measured according to this cut-off value. The distribution of CT findings according to pathological Marsh data was evaluated in CD patients. Results Sensitivity and specificity were found to be higher in small bowel MABP findings, mesenteric hypervascularity, and increased SMV/aorta diameter. There was a numerically significant difference in MDCT findings between the control and pathological Marsh groups. In the ROC analysis performed in terms of the total numerical values of each MDCT finding observed between the groups, it was found that there were more than 7 MDCT findings, 100% sensitivity, and 92% specificity. The presence of four major and three minor criteria or three major and four minor criteria were considered significant. Conclusions Being aware of CT findings below the iceberg that may suggest CD in abdominal CT examinations performed in patients with atypical clinical and malabsorption findings or other nonspecific findings may prevent diagnostic delay and unnecessary procedures. Graphical abstract
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00261-022-03480-x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2638951794</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2638951794</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-51a69f886488e7e16dafcc9699074615dac5bbab16a68b533c50ec974c844fb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1v1DAQhi0EotXSP8ABWeLCJcUfseOcEGqhIFXi0ns0cSa7rhJ78STQXvjteLvlQxw4zej1M69H8zL2UopzKUTzloRQVlZCqUro2onq7gk7VdraSgjjnv7Vn7AzolshhLRGSmWesxNtVNM2WpyyH5cJifsUlwy0VBh3ED0ORZn361KaJc1pm2G_u-cZAiGH75AxIhEPkS875EOAbUwUiKfxQQjxW6DQT8gpDHhQPU4BfCEJgQ4Ah2GdFnr3gj0bYSI8e6wbdvPxw83Fp-r6y9Xni_fXldeNWSojwbajc7Z2DhuUdoDR-9a2rWhqK80A3vQ99NKCdb3R2huBvm1q7-p67PWGvTna7nP6uiIt3RyoLDVBxLRSp6x2rZFNWxf09T_obVpzLMsVytROGVUut2HqSPmciDKO3T6HGfJ9J0V3yKc75tOVfLqHfLq7MvTq0XrtZxx-j_xKowD6CFB5ilvMf_7-j-1P7sicqg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2654825297</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Does contrast-enhanced computed tomography raise awareness in the diagnosis of the invisible side of celiac disease in adults?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Göya, Cemil ; Dündar, İlyas ; Özgökçe, Mesut ; Türko, Ensar ; Özkaçmaz, Sercan ; Durmaz, Fatma ; Aydın, Mesut ; Alabalık, Ulaş ; Geylani, Yusuf ; Arslan, Mehmet ; Hattapoğlu, Salih</creator><creatorcontrib>Göya, Cemil ; Dündar, İlyas ; Özgökçe, Mesut ; Türko, Ensar ; Özkaçmaz, Sercan ; Durmaz, Fatma ; Aydın, Mesut ; Alabalık, Ulaş ; Geylani, Yusuf ; Arslan, Mehmet ; Hattapoğlu, Salih</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the diagnosis and determine major and minor criteria of celiac disease (CD) with the malabsorption patterns (MABP) in the small intestine and colon on computed tomography (CT) and additional CT findings. Methods This retrospective study was conducted with 116 patients diagnosed with CD, 14 CD patients recovering with treatment, and 35 control patients with non-CD. All patients had CT examinations and histopathological diagnoses. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy values of each CT finding defined in the literature were statistically evaluated. According to the patient and control groups, the numerical values of the findings and the sensitivity and specificity values were measured according to this cut-off value. The distribution of CT findings according to pathological Marsh data was evaluated in CD patients. Results Sensitivity and specificity were found to be higher in small bowel MABP findings, mesenteric hypervascularity, and increased SMV/aorta diameter. There was a numerically significant difference in MDCT findings between the control and pathological Marsh groups. In the ROC analysis performed in terms of the total numerical values of each MDCT finding observed between the groups, it was found that there were more than 7 MDCT findings, 100% sensitivity, and 92% specificity. The presence of four major and three minor criteria or three major and four minor criteria were considered significant. Conclusions Being aware of CT findings below the iceberg that may suggest CD in abdominal CT examinations performed in patients with atypical clinical and malabsorption findings or other nonspecific findings may prevent diagnostic delay and unnecessary procedures. Graphical abstract</description><identifier>ISSN: 2366-0058</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 2366-004X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2366-0058</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00261-022-03480-x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35279730</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Abdomen ; Adult ; Aorta ; Autoimmune diseases ; Celiac disease ; Celiac Disease - diagnostic imaging ; Colon ; Computed tomography ; Contrast agents ; Criteria ; Delayed Diagnosis ; Diagnosis ; Diameters ; Evaluation ; Gastroenterology ; Hepatology ; Hollow Organ GI ; Humans ; Imaging ; Intestine ; Malabsorption ; Marshes ; Medical diagnosis ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Patients ; Radiology ; Retrospective Studies ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Small intestine ; Tomography ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><ispartof>Abdominal imaging, 2022-05, Vol.47 (5), p.1750-1761</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2022</rights><rights>2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.</rights><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2022.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-51a69f886488e7e16dafcc9699074615dac5bbab16a68b533c50ec974c844fb3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-51a69f886488e7e16dafcc9699074615dac5bbab16a68b533c50ec974c844fb3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3089-7165 ; 0000-0003-3514-3362 ; 0000-0002-9245-0206 ; 0000-0003-4844-6274 ; 0000-0003-4551-8439 ; 0000-0003-4781-9729 ; 0000-0002-1429-077X ; 0000-0002-7411-1067 ; 0000-0003-4792-8722 ; 0000-0001-7989-5668 ; 0000-0002-3095-2446</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00261-022-03480-x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00261-022-03480-x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35279730$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Göya, Cemil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dündar, İlyas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Özgökçe, Mesut</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Türko, Ensar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Özkaçmaz, Sercan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Durmaz, Fatma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aydın, Mesut</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alabalık, Ulaş</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geylani, Yusuf</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arslan, Mehmet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hattapoğlu, Salih</creatorcontrib><title>Does contrast-enhanced computed tomography raise awareness in the diagnosis of the invisible side of celiac disease in adults?</title><title>Abdominal imaging</title><addtitle>Abdom Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Abdom Radiol (NY)</addtitle><description>Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the diagnosis and determine major and minor criteria of celiac disease (CD) with the malabsorption patterns (MABP) in the small intestine and colon on computed tomography (CT) and additional CT findings. Methods This retrospective study was conducted with 116 patients diagnosed with CD, 14 CD patients recovering with treatment, and 35 control patients with non-CD. All patients had CT examinations and histopathological diagnoses. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy values of each CT finding defined in the literature were statistically evaluated. According to the patient and control groups, the numerical values of the findings and the sensitivity and specificity values were measured according to this cut-off value. The distribution of CT findings according to pathological Marsh data was evaluated in CD patients. Results Sensitivity and specificity were found to be higher in small bowel MABP findings, mesenteric hypervascularity, and increased SMV/aorta diameter. There was a numerically significant difference in MDCT findings between the control and pathological Marsh groups. In the ROC analysis performed in terms of the total numerical values of each MDCT finding observed between the groups, it was found that there were more than 7 MDCT findings, 100% sensitivity, and 92% specificity. The presence of four major and three minor criteria or three major and four minor criteria were considered significant. Conclusions Being aware of CT findings below the iceberg that may suggest CD in abdominal CT examinations performed in patients with atypical clinical and malabsorption findings or other nonspecific findings may prevent diagnostic delay and unnecessary procedures. Graphical abstract</description><subject>Abdomen</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aorta</subject><subject>Autoimmune diseases</subject><subject>Celiac disease</subject><subject>Celiac Disease - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Colon</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>Contrast agents</subject><subject>Criteria</subject><subject>Delayed Diagnosis</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Diameters</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>Hepatology</subject><subject>Hollow Organ GI</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Intestine</subject><subject>Malabsorption</subject><subject>Marshes</subject><subject>Medical diagnosis</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Small intestine</subject><subject>Tomography</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><issn>2366-0058</issn><issn>2366-004X</issn><issn>2366-0058</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU1v1DAQhi0EotXSP8ABWeLCJcUfseOcEGqhIFXi0ns0cSa7rhJ78STQXvjteLvlQxw4zej1M69H8zL2UopzKUTzloRQVlZCqUro2onq7gk7VdraSgjjnv7Vn7AzolshhLRGSmWesxNtVNM2WpyyH5cJifsUlwy0VBh3ED0ORZn361KaJc1pm2G_u-cZAiGH75AxIhEPkS875EOAbUwUiKfxQQjxW6DQT8gpDHhQPU4BfCEJgQ4Ah2GdFnr3gj0bYSI8e6wbdvPxw83Fp-r6y9Xni_fXldeNWSojwbajc7Z2DhuUdoDR-9a2rWhqK80A3vQ99NKCdb3R2huBvm1q7-p67PWGvTna7nP6uiIt3RyoLDVBxLRSp6x2rZFNWxf09T_obVpzLMsVytROGVUut2HqSPmciDKO3T6HGfJ9J0V3yKc75tOVfLqHfLq7MvTq0XrtZxx-j_xKowD6CFB5ilvMf_7-j-1P7sicqg</recordid><startdate>20220501</startdate><enddate>20220501</enddate><creator>Göya, Cemil</creator><creator>Dündar, İlyas</creator><creator>Özgökçe, Mesut</creator><creator>Türko, Ensar</creator><creator>Özkaçmaz, Sercan</creator><creator>Durmaz, Fatma</creator><creator>Aydın, Mesut</creator><creator>Alabalık, Ulaş</creator><creator>Geylani, Yusuf</creator><creator>Arslan, Mehmet</creator><creator>Hattapoğlu, Salih</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K7-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3089-7165</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3514-3362</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9245-0206</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4844-6274</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4551-8439</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4781-9729</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1429-077X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7411-1067</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4792-8722</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7989-5668</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3095-2446</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220501</creationdate><title>Does contrast-enhanced computed tomography raise awareness in the diagnosis of the invisible side of celiac disease in adults?</title><author>Göya, Cemil ; Dündar, İlyas ; Özgökçe, Mesut ; Türko, Ensar ; Özkaçmaz, Sercan ; Durmaz, Fatma ; Aydın, Mesut ; Alabalık, Ulaş ; Geylani, Yusuf ; Arslan, Mehmet ; Hattapoğlu, Salih</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-51a69f886488e7e16dafcc9699074615dac5bbab16a68b533c50ec974c844fb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Abdomen</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aorta</topic><topic>Autoimmune diseases</topic><topic>Celiac disease</topic><topic>Celiac Disease - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Colon</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>Contrast agents</topic><topic>Criteria</topic><topic>Delayed Diagnosis</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Diameters</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>Hepatology</topic><topic>Hollow Organ GI</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Intestine</topic><topic>Malabsorption</topic><topic>Marshes</topic><topic>Medical diagnosis</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Small intestine</topic><topic>Tomography</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Göya, Cemil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dündar, İlyas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Özgökçe, Mesut</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Türko, Ensar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Özkaçmaz, Sercan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Durmaz, Fatma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aydın, Mesut</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alabalık, Ulaş</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geylani, Yusuf</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arslan, Mehmet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hattapoğlu, Salih</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Computer Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Abdominal imaging</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Göya, Cemil</au><au>Dündar, İlyas</au><au>Özgökçe, Mesut</au><au>Türko, Ensar</au><au>Özkaçmaz, Sercan</au><au>Durmaz, Fatma</au><au>Aydın, Mesut</au><au>Alabalık, Ulaş</au><au>Geylani, Yusuf</au><au>Arslan, Mehmet</au><au>Hattapoğlu, Salih</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Does contrast-enhanced computed tomography raise awareness in the diagnosis of the invisible side of celiac disease in adults?</atitle><jtitle>Abdominal imaging</jtitle><stitle>Abdom Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Abdom Radiol (NY)</addtitle><date>2022-05-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>47</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1750</spage><epage>1761</epage><pages>1750-1761</pages><issn>2366-0058</issn><issn>2366-004X</issn><eissn>2366-0058</eissn><abstract>Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the diagnosis and determine major and minor criteria of celiac disease (CD) with the malabsorption patterns (MABP) in the small intestine and colon on computed tomography (CT) and additional CT findings. Methods This retrospective study was conducted with 116 patients diagnosed with CD, 14 CD patients recovering with treatment, and 35 control patients with non-CD. All patients had CT examinations and histopathological diagnoses. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy values of each CT finding defined in the literature were statistically evaluated. According to the patient and control groups, the numerical values of the findings and the sensitivity and specificity values were measured according to this cut-off value. The distribution of CT findings according to pathological Marsh data was evaluated in CD patients. Results Sensitivity and specificity were found to be higher in small bowel MABP findings, mesenteric hypervascularity, and increased SMV/aorta diameter. There was a numerically significant difference in MDCT findings between the control and pathological Marsh groups. In the ROC analysis performed in terms of the total numerical values of each MDCT finding observed between the groups, it was found that there were more than 7 MDCT findings, 100% sensitivity, and 92% specificity. The presence of four major and three minor criteria or three major and four minor criteria were considered significant. Conclusions Being aware of CT findings below the iceberg that may suggest CD in abdominal CT examinations performed in patients with atypical clinical and malabsorption findings or other nonspecific findings may prevent diagnostic delay and unnecessary procedures. Graphical abstract</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>35279730</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00261-022-03480-x</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3089-7165</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3514-3362</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9245-0206</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4844-6274</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4551-8439</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4781-9729</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1429-077X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7411-1067</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4792-8722</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7989-5668</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3095-2446</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2366-0058
ispartof Abdominal imaging, 2022-05, Vol.47 (5), p.1750-1761
issn 2366-0058
2366-004X
2366-0058
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2638951794
source MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals
subjects Abdomen
Adult
Aorta
Autoimmune diseases
Celiac disease
Celiac Disease - diagnostic imaging
Colon
Computed tomography
Contrast agents
Criteria
Delayed Diagnosis
Diagnosis
Diameters
Evaluation
Gastroenterology
Hepatology
Hollow Organ GI
Humans
Imaging
Intestine
Malabsorption
Marshes
Medical diagnosis
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Patients
Radiology
Retrospective Studies
Sensitivity and Specificity
Small intestine
Tomography
Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods
title Does contrast-enhanced computed tomography raise awareness in the diagnosis of the invisible side of celiac disease in adults?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T23%3A19%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Does%20contrast-enhanced%20computed%20tomography%20raise%20awareness%20in%20the%20diagnosis%20of%20the%20invisible%20side%20of%20celiac%20disease%20in%20adults?&rft.jtitle=Abdominal%20imaging&rft.au=G%C3%B6ya,%20Cemil&rft.date=2022-05-01&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1750&rft.epage=1761&rft.pages=1750-1761&rft.issn=2366-0058&rft.eissn=2366-0058&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00261-022-03480-x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2638951794%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2654825297&rft_id=info:pmid/35279730&rfr_iscdi=true