Affordable Access

Publisher Website

Reliability of measuring ileo-colonic disease activity in Crohn’s Disease by magnetic resonance enterography

  • Jairath, Vipul
  • Ordas, Ingrid
  • Zou, Guangyong
  • Panes, Julian
  • Stoker, Jaap
  • Taylor, Stuart A
  • Santillan, Cynthia
  • Horsthuis, Karin
  • Samaan, Mark A
  • Shackelton, Lisa M
  • Stitt, Larry W
  • Hindryckx, Pieter
  • Khanna, Reena
  • Sandborn, William J
  • D'Haens, Geert
  • Feagan, Brian G
  • Levesque, Barrett G
  • Rimola, Jordi
Publication Date
Jan 01, 2018
DOI: 10.1093/ibd/izx040
Ghent University Institutional Archive
External links


Background: Magnetic resonance enterography is increasingly utilized for assessment of luminal Crohn's disease activity. The Magnetic Resonance Index of Activity and the London Index are the most commonly used outcome measures in clinical trials. We assessed the reliability of these indices and several additional items. Methods: A consensus process clarified scoring conventions and identified additional items based on face validity. Four experienced radiologists evaluated 50 images in triplicate, in random order, at least 1 month apart, using a central image management system. Intra-and interrater reliability were assessed by calculating and comparing intraclass correlation coefficients. Results: Intrarater intraclass correlation coefficients (95% confidence intervals) for the Magnetic Resonance Index of Activity, London, and London "extended" indices and a visual analogue scale were 0.89 (0.84 to 0.91), 0.87 (0.83 to 0.90), 0.89 (0.85 to 0.92), and 0.86 (0.81 to 0.90). Corresponding interrater intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.71 (0.61 to 0.77), 0.67 (0.55 to 0.75), 0.70 (0.61 to 0.76), and 0.71 (0.62 to 0.77). Reliability for each index was greatest in the terminal ileum and poorest in the rectum. All 3 indices were highly correlated with the visual analogue scale; 0.79 (0.71 to 0.85), 0.78 (0.71 to 0.84), and 0.79 (0.72 to 0.85) for the Magnetic Resonance Index of Activity, London, and the London "extended" indices, respectively. Conclusions: "Substantial" interrater reliability was observed for all 3 indices. Future studies should assess responsiveness to treatment in order to confirm their utility as evaluative indices in clinical trials and clinical practice.

Report this publication


Seen <100 times