Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Bowel ultrasound has several possible uses in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including the initial evaluation of suspected IBD, monitoring of therapeutic response, detection of relapse, and diagnosis of complications as well as of extra-intestinal manifestations. However, its use has been limited mainly to countries where it is performed by the attending physician. 

Objectives: To investigate the feasibility and sensitivity of bedside bowel ultrasound performed by a gastroenterologist for assessing disease activity and complications in IBD.

Methods: We performed a feasibility study to compare the results of bowel ultrasound examination with those of another cross-sectional imaging modality (computed tomographic enterography or magnetic resonance enterography) in Crohn's disease, or with colonoscopy in ulcerative colitis.

Results: Between May 2015 and March 2016, 178 bowel ultrasound examinations were performed in 178 patients with suspected or established diagnosis of IBD. In 79 cases the results of another cross-sectional imaging or endoscopic examination performed within 3 months prior to the ultrasound exam were available. The sensitivity for detection of intestinal bowel thickening (a surrogate of inflammation) was 90%, and for detection of Crohn's disease complications, namely bowel stenosis and inflammatory mass, was 94% and 75%, respectively.

Conclusions: Bowel ultrasound is a useful and feasible bedside imaging tool for the detection of inflammation and complications in IBD patients. Bedside bowel ultrasound can be a valuable non-invasive tool to assess disease activity and complications in IBD patients when performed by the attending physician.

 

Background: Guidelines are important for keeping family physicians informed of the constant developments in many fields of medicine.

Objectives: To compare the knowledge of gastroenterologists and family physicians regarding the diagnosis and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease in order to determine the need for expert guidelines.

Methods: A 25 item questionnaire on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of GERD[1] was presented to 35 gastroenterologists and 35 family physicians. Each item was rated on a four point scale from 1 = highly recommended to 4 = not recommended. A voting system was used for each group on separate occasions. The proportions of correct answers according to the level of recommendation were compared between the groups.

Results: The groups' responses agreed on only 4 of the 25 items; differences between the remaining 21 were all statistically significant. For 14 items, 70% of the gastroenterologists chose the grade 1 recommendation, whereas more than 70% of the family physicians chose mostly grade 2.

Conclusions: The gap in knowledge on gastroesophageal reflux disease between gastroenterologists and family physicians is significant and may have a profound impact on diagnosis and treatment. Clear and accurate guidelines may improve patient evaluation in the community.