Comparative study between bowel ultrasound and magnetic resonance enterography among Egyptian inflammatory bowel disease patients

Table 5 Comparison between clinical symptoms and imaging techniques; bowel ultrasound and magnetic resonance enterography

	Abdominal pain			P value	Bleeding per rectum			P value	Diarrhea		P value
	No, n (%)	Yes, n (%)			No, n (%)	Yes, n (%)			No, n (%)	Yes, n (%)
Bowel ultrasound
Large bowel	0 (0)	8 (22.2%)		0.292	8 (25.0%)	0 (0)		0.114	2 (10.0%)	6 (30.0%)	0.114
Ileum	4 (100.0%)	30 (83.3%)		0.376	26 (81.2%)	8 (100.0%)		0.184	18 (90.0%)	16 (80.0%)	0.376
Thickness (> 3 mm)	4 (100.0%)	20 (55.6%)		0.085	18 (56.2%)	6 (75.0%)		0.333	14 (70.0%)	10 (50.0%)	0.197
Extent	0 (0)	8 (22.2%)		0.292	8 (25.0%)	0 (0)		0.114	2 (10.0%)	6 (30.0%)	0.114
Lymphadenopathy	0 (0)	10 (27.8%)		0.224	8 (25.0%)	2 (25.0%)		1.000	4 (20.0%)	6 (30.0%)	0.465
Fistula	0 (0)	12 (33.3%)		0.168	8 (25.0%)	4 (50.0%)		0.168	4 (20.0%)	8 (40.0%)	0.168
Stricture and proximal dilatation	0 (0)	2 (5.6%)		0.629	0 (0)	2 (25.0%)		0.004	0 (0)	2 (10.0%)	0.147
Abscess	2 (50.0%)	6 (16.7%)		0.114	6 (18.8%)	2 (25.0%)		0.693	6 (30.0%)	2 (10.0%)	0.114
MRE
Large bowel	0 (0)	16 (44.4%)		0.085	14 (43.8%)	2 (25.0%)		0.333	6 (30.0%)	10 (50.0%)	0.197
Ileum	4 (100.0%)	28 (77.8%)		0.292	24 (75.0%)	8 (100.0%)		0.114	16 (80.0%)	16 (80.0%)	1.000
Thickness (> 3 mm)	2 (50.0%)	10 (27.8%)		0.358	10 (31.2%)	2 (25.0%)		0.730	6 (30.0%)	6 (30.0%)	1.000
Extent	0 (0)	12 (33.3%)		0.168	10 (31.2%)	2 (25.0%)		0.730	2 (10.0%)	10 (50.0%)	0.006
Lymphadenopathy	0 (0)	12 (33.3%)		0.168	8 (25.0%)	4 (50.0%)		0.168	8 (40.0%)	4 (20.0%)	0.168
Fistula	0 (0)	14 (38.9%)		0.122	10 (31.2%)	4 (50.0%)		0.320	6 (30.0%)	8 (40.0%)	0.507
Stricture and proximal dilatation	0 (0)	4 (11.1%)		0.482	4 (12.5%)	0 (0)		0.292	2 (10.0%)	2 (10.0%)	1.000
Abscess	0 (0)	6 (16.7%)		0.376	6 (18.8%)	0 (0)		0.184	2 (10.0%)	4 (20.0%)	0.376

MRE: Magnetic resonance enterography.