High-end intestinal ultrasound versus mid-end systems benchmarked against tandem ileocolonoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease (HUMID): a paired prospective, validating confirmatory study.
cross_sectional · Level IV
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 41969335.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.eclinm.2026.103856 and PMC identifier 13068867.
- Licence recorded as CC BY.
- The licence permits redistribution, so the abstract is shown in full and the full text is available from the publisher.
Abstract
Intestinal ultrasound (IUS) is redefining inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) monitoring, but global adoption remains limited by the cost of high-end systems. This study evaluated whether widely available mid-range equipment provides comparable diagnostic accuracy without additional cost. We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional, paired diagnostic accuracy study at a single IBD centre in India from September 2024 to October 2025. We included patients aged 18-75 years with confirmed ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn's disease (CD). Trained operators performed same-day blinded assessments using a mid-end (Siemens ACUSON S2000) and a high-end system (Samsung RS80 EVO). Blinded ileocolonoscopy with central review served as the reference. Endoscopic remission was defined as Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) ≤ 1 for UC and Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD) ≤ 2 for CD. Sonographic activity was assessed using the Milan Ultrasound Criteria (MUC) for UC and the International Bowel Ultrasound Simplified Activity Score (IBUS-SAS) for CD. Diagnostic accuracy, segment-wise performance, and reclassification impact were evaluated. Paired comparisons used McNemar testing for proportions, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis with area-under-the-curve (AUC) comparison, and agreement analyses using Bland-Altman and concordance methods. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06938295. 450 patients underwent paired IUS and ileocolonoscopy (239 UC, 211 CD; median age 36 years; 32% female). In UC, sensitivity was 94.2% with the mid-end and 97.1% with the high-end system (Δ +2.9%; 95% CI -3.8 to 9.6), with identical specificity (54.5%). In CD, sensitivity was 85.1% versus 87.6% (Δ +2.5%; 95% CI -8.2 to 13.0) and specificity 62.0% versus 60.0% (95% CI -28.0 to 24.2); accuracies differed by <3%. Segment-wise performance showed no significant differences across any bowel regions. ROC analyses showed good-excellent discrimination [AUC: 0.75-0.93 (UC); 0.83-0.94 (CD) in various segments], with overlapping curves and strong score correlation. Reclassification analysis showed a net gain of +6 patients (diagnostic odds ratio 1.8, 95% CI: 0.9-3.5) for high end machine. Bland-Altman and concordance analyses demonstrated minimal bias and high agreement. Decision-curve analysis confirmed equivalent net clinical benefit. High-end IUS conferred no measurable diagnostic or clinical advantage over mid-range equipment when examinations were performed by trained operators using standardised scoring systems, supporting mid-range systems as scalable and cost-effective tools for IBD monitoring. No external funding.