SynthesisJournal of Crohn's & colitis2026
Transperineal ultrasonography in detecting penetrating perianal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of Crohn's & colitis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perianal Fistulae Medical Imaging Maps: A Pictorial Diagnostic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Perianal Crohn's Disease in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Diagnosis, Assessment and Treatment.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsPerianal complications such as fistulas and abscesses are common in Crohn's disease (CD) and contribute to significant morbidity. Transperineal ultrasonography (TPUS) has emerged as a non-invasive and accurate method for perianal fistulizing CD (pfCD). This review evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of TPUS compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS), and examination under anesthesia (EUA) for detecting and classifying perianal fistulas and abscesses.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases through January 2025 to identify studies evaluating TPUS accuracy in detecting perianal fistulas and abscesses compared with MRI, TRUS, or EUA as the reference standard. Meta-analysis was performed to assess TPUS accuracy for fistula detection (FD), fistula classification (FC), internal opening (IO) detection, and abscess detection (AD). The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool was used to evaluate risk of bias.
resultsOf 1059 studies identified, 29 were included in this review. Pooled sensitivities for FD (18 studies, 1474 patients), FC (11 studies, 585 patients), IO detection (six studies, 481 patients), and AD (16 studies, 1276 patients) were 97.5%, 80.3%, 89.6%, and 93.5% respectively while pooled specificities for FD, IO detection, and AD were 69.0%, 66.3%, and 94.5% respectively. The overall TPUS accuracy for FD, FC, IO detection, and AD was 88.0%, 88.6%, 77.8%, and 91.8% respectively. Subgroup analysis on CD patients showed an accuracy of 86.4%, 87.6%, and 83.3% for FD, FC, and AD respectively.
conclusionsTPUS demonstrates high accuracy in detecting perianal fistulas and abscesses, supporting its use as a non-invasive, first-line diagnostic tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.